0} 


SEP  7  W33 

Logical 


BT  306.29  . M3 2  1923  c.3 
Macartney,  Clarence  Edward 
Noble,  1879-1957. 

Twelve  great  questions  about 
Christ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive  - 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/twelvegreatquestOOmaca 


TWELVE  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT 

CHRIST 


Twelve  Great  Questions 
About  Christ 


of  mticf 


A 


SEP  7  1933 


4>a 


By 


^OGIVAL  20& 


CLARENCE  E.  MACARTNEY,  D.  D., 


Author  of  “The  Parables  of  the  Old 
Testament etc. 


WITH  FOREWORD  BY 

J.  GRESHAM  MACHEN,  D.D., 

Assistant  Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature  and 
Exegesis  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary 


New  York  Chicago 

Fleming  H.  Revell  Company 

London  and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1923,  by 

FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  17  North  Wabash  Ave. 
London:  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:  75  Princes  Street 


To 


MY  MOTHER, 

Clear  in  mind,  strong  in  faith , 
Great  in  love. 


Foreword 


By  J.  Gresham  Machen,  D.D. 

Assistant  Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature  and 
Exegesis  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary . 

THE  title  of  this  book  may  cause  misgiv¬ 
ing  in  certain  quarters.  “  Questions  about 
Christ  ”  are  sometimes  thought  to  be  un¬ 
necessary;  we  may  differ  in  our  opinions  about 
Christ,  it  is  said,  and  yet  have  Christ  Himself ;  we 
may  trust  Him  without  taking  sides  in  theological 
controversies.  But  a  little  reflection  shows  the 
absurdity  of  such  indifferentism.  Faith  in  a  person 
always  involves  opinions  about  the  person  in  whom 
faith  is  reposed;  it  is  impossible  to  trust  a  person 
whom  one  holds  to  be  untrustworthy.  So  it  is  in 
the  case  of  our  relation  to  Christ.  It  is  really  pres 
posterous  to  place  “  theology  ”  in  contrast  to  simple 
faith;  for  the  “  theological  ”  questions  which  are 
being  debated  in  the  Church  today  are  not  ques¬ 
tions  which  lie  on  the  periphery  of  Christian  belief, 
but  concern  rather  the  central  question  whether 
Jesus  was  merely  a  prophet  who  initiated  a  new 
type  of  religious  life  or  a  Saviour  to  whom  we 
may  safely  commit  the  destinies  of  the  soul. 

It  is  these  great  matters  which  are  discussed  in 


7 


8 


FOREWORD 


this  book.  They  are  discussed  by  a  preacher  of 
proven  power,  and  in  the  book  the  secret  of  his 
power  is  revealed.  Dr.  Macartney  is  a  preacher 
because  he  has  a  message — a  message  which  it  is 
reasonable  to  accept.  He  is  not  engaged  merely 
in  voicing  his  own  opinions  on  the  subjects  of 
religion  or  ethics  or  sociology;  but  when  he  comes 
forth  into  the  pulpit  he  comes  from  a  secret  place 
of  meditation  and  power,  and  with  the  message 
which  God  has  given  him  to  proclaim.  The  centre 
and  core  of  the  message  is  Jesus  Christ — not  the 
reduced  and  unreal  Jesus  of  modern  naturalistic 
Liberalism,  but  the  all-sufficient  Saviour  presented 
in  the  Word  of  God.  But  may  we  still  hold  to  the 
Jesus  of  the  Word  of  God?  That  is  the  real  ques¬ 
tion  which  is  being  faced  by  the  Church  today. 
And  it  is  convincingly  answered  in  the  twelve 
chapters  of  the  present  book. 


Contents 


I.  Was  Christ  Born  o f  the  Virgin 

Mary?  . 11 

II.  Did  Christ  Furfir  Prophecy?  .  .  39 

III.  Was  Christ  An  Originar  Teacher?  54 

IV.  Did  Christ  Work  Miracres?  .  .  67 

^  V.  Was  Christ  the  Son  of  God?  .  .  84 

-  VI.  Did  Christ  Die  for  Our  Sins?  .  .  98 

VII.  Did  Christ  Rise  From  the  Dead?  .  114 

VIII.  Did  Christ  Ascend  Into  Heaven?  .  130 

IX.  Wirr  Christ  Come  Again?  .  .  144 

X.  Jesus  and  Paur — Do  They  Differ?  162 

XI.  Wirr  Another  Jesus  Do?  .  .  190 

XII.  Have  New  Foes  Risen  Against 

Christ  ? . 204 


I 


WAS  CHRIST  BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN 

MARY? 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee:  therefore 
also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  he  horn  of  thee  shall  he 
called  the  Son  of  God.” — Luke;  i  :  35. 

FROM  the  beginning,  the  Christian  Church 
has  held  the  doctrine  of  the  supernatural 
conception  and  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  be  a  true  and  essential  portion  of  the  faith 

X 

once  delivered  unto  the  saints.  To  unbelief  in  all 
of  its  forms  this  doctrine  has  always  been  offensive. 
As  early  as  the  third  century  we  find  the  opponents 
of  Christianity  centering  their  attack  upon  the  nar¬ 
ratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  from  age  to  age, 
men  who  hate  the  Christian  religion  and  wish  that 
it  were  driven  out  of  the  world  have  bitterly  as¬ 
sailed  this  doctrine  of  catholic  Christianity.  There 
is  therefore  nothing  strange  in  the  present  day 
revival  of  the  ancient  assaults  upon  the  Virgin 
Birth.  The  only  new  and  strange  thing  about  this 
old  enmity  is  the  kind  of  men  who  make  the  attack. 
Formerly,  it  was  made  by  non-Christians  and  anti- 
Christians — men  without  the  Church.  But  now 
we  find  men  in  the  Church  saying  of  the  Virgin 

11 


12  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Birth  of  our  Lord  practically  what  Ingersoll, 
Haeckel,  Paine,  Voltaire,  Celsus  and  Cerinthus 
said.  Many  declare  that  the  credibility  and  sig¬ 
nificance  of  Christianity  are  in  no  way  affected  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  some  go  so 
far  as  to  say  that  the  doctrine  is  a  stumbling  block 
to  faith,  and  puts  a  barrier  between  Jesus  and  the 
race,  and  that  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  in  the 
Gospels  arose  in  much  the  same  way  as  the  old 
legends  and  myths  about  the  supernatural  births  of 
famous  personages  of  the  pagan  world. 

That  such  utterances  as  these  should  be  made  by 
men  within  the  Christian  Church,  and  by  men  sol¬ 
emnly  ordained  to  proclaim,  to  the  world  the  Gospel 
of  Christ,  shows  the  necessity  of  reaffirming  the 
doctrine  of  the  manner  of  the  Incarnation,  and 
reviewing  those  impregnable  grounds  upon  which 
the  Church  has  received  and  held  this  truth  for  so 
many  ages. 

In  discussing  this  article  of  Christianity  let  us 
remember  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  great  mystery. 
The  beginning  of  all  life  is  a  mystery,  over  which 
science,  which  can  tell  us  so  much  about  the  prog¬ 
ress  and  change  of  things,  has  shed  not  even  the 
feeblest  ray  of  light.  Pondering  over  the  mystery 
of  his  own  birth  and  existence  the  Psalmist  said, 
“  I  will  praise  thee  for  I  am  fearfully  and  wonder¬ 
fully  made ;  marvelous  are  thy  works  and  that  my 
soul  knoweth  right  well.  My  substance  was  not 
hid  from  thee  when  I  was  made  in  secret  and 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


13 


curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth. 
Thine  eye  did  see  my  substance  yet  being  imper¬ 
fect,  and  in  thy  book  all  my  members  were  written 
which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet 
there  were  none  of  them.”  If  this  be  true  of  the 
birth  and  conception  of  man,  how  much  more  of 
the  conception  and  the  birth  of  the  God-man  Jesus 
Christ !  “  Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness,”  says 
St.  Paul,  and  he  goes  on  to  define  wherein  the 
mystery  consists :  It  is  the  mystery  of  the  Incarna¬ 
tion:  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 

In  discussing  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
we  shall,  for  the  sake  of  clearness  and  simplicity, 
divide  the  subject  into  two  parts;  first,  the  fact 
of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  secondly,  the  meaning  of 
the  fact,  or  the  place  of  the  fact  in  Christian  faith. 

I — THE  FACT  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

The  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is,  ultimately, 
a  question  of  fact.  Those  who  depart  from  his¬ 
toric  Christianity  at  this  point  cannot  with  any 
degree  of  plausibility  claim,  as  they  do  in  regard 
to  other  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith,  that  they 
differ  only  as  to  interpretation,  for  this  is  not  a 
matter  of  theory  and  interpretation,  but  a  matter 
of  fact.  Was  Christ,  or  was  He  not,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary?  From  the  very  beginning  the 
Church  has  believed  that  the  birth  of  Christ  was 
“  on  this  wise,”  namely,  that  He  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  No  one  disputes  the  antiquity  or 


14  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  universality  of  this  belief.  The  question  before 
us  now  is.  How  did  such  a  belief  arise?  Was  it 
a  carefully  fabricated  legend,  or  myth,  cleverly 
foisted  upon  the  intelligence  and  faith  of  the  first 
disciples  ?  Was  it  a  story  put  into  Gospels  by  some 
interpolator,  long  after  the  original  manuscripts 
were  written?  Did  it  come,  as  we  are  told  many 
good  Christians  believe  it  did  come,  from  a  natural 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  believers  in  Jesus  to  ac¬ 
count  for  His  manifest  uniqueness  and  superiority 
of  character,  in  other  words,  as  the  myths  about 
Plato  and  Augustus  and  Hercules  arose?  Or,  did 
the  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth  originate  in  the  fact 
of  the  Virgin  Birth?  The  Christian  Church  holds 
that  it  was  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  which  gave 
rise  to  the  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth.  What  evi¬ 
dence  have  we  for  the  fact  ? 

The  evidence  upon  which  we  base  our  faith  in 
the  Virgin  Birth  is  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels. 
There  are  four  Gospels,  but  only  two  of  them, 
Matthew  and  Luke,  tell  anything  about  the  birth 
of  Jesus.  Mark  commences  with  the  Baptism  of 
Jesus  by  John,  as  does  also  John,  after  a  prologue 
in  which  he  states  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  but 
tells  us  nothing  as  to  the  manner.  But  both 
Matthew  and  Luke,  in  plain  and  yet  beautiful 
language,  tell  us  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus. 
Their  accounts  are  evidently  independent  narra¬ 
tives,  yet  not  in  conflict,  and  in  many  respects  they 
complement  one  another.  Take,  first,  the  record  of 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


15 


Matthew.  He  tells  us  that  there  was  a  man  named 
Joseph  who  was  about  to  take  as  his  wife  a  maiden 
named  Mary.  Before  the  marriage,  he  discovered 
that  Mary  was  about  to  become  a  mother.  Joseph 
had  only  one  explanation  of  such  a  condition, 
namely,  that  Mary  had  been  faithless  to  the  vows 
of  her  espousal.  Of  course,  he  could  not  proceed 
with  the  marriage  under  these  circumstances,  but 
instead  of  heralding  her  shame  before  the  towns¬ 
folk  of  Nazareth,  and  publicly  humiliating  her, 
Joseph,  who  was  “  a  just  man,”  was  deliberating 
as  to  how  he  might  put  her  away  in  some  private 
manner.  He  was  in  the  midst  of  his  meditations 
when  there  appeared  unto  him  the  angel  of  the 
Lord.  The  angel  told  him  not  to  hesitate  about 
proceeding  to  marry  Mary,  for  she  had  not  been 
faithless  to  the  law  of  purity,  but  “  that  which  is 
conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  She  would 
soon  give  birth  to  a  son  whose  name  would  be 
Jesus  (Saviour)  for  He  would  save  His  people 
from  their  sins.  Moreover,  all  this  was  in  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  an  ancient  prophecy  of  Isaiah  that  a  virgin 
should  give  birth  to  a  son,  and  the  name  of  the  son 
should  be  Immanuel  (God  with  us).  After  this 
interview  with  the  angel,  Joseph  took  Mary  as  his 
wife,  and  shortly  thereafter  Mary  gave  birth  to 
Jesus  at  Bethlehem. 

Such  is  the  story  of  Matthew.  Turn  now  to  the 
story  of  Luke.  Luke  tells  us  that  the  angel  Gabriel 
came  to  visit  a  virgin  named  Mary,  at  Nazareth, 


16  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


who  was  espoused  to  a  man  named  Joseph,  of 
the  house  of  David,  and  said  to  her,  “  Haii,  thou 
art  highly  favoured,  the  Lord  is  with  thee.”  The 
virgin  was  confused  and  frightened  upon  hear¬ 
ing  such  a  greeting,  but  the  angel  proceeded  to 
make  clear  the  reason  for  it  by  telling  her  that 
she  would  shortly  give  birth  to  a  son  whose 
name  would  be  Jesus,  and  that  this  son  would 
have  the  throne  of  David  and  would  reign  for¬ 
ever.  Then  Mary  asked  a  very  natural  and  sim¬ 
ple  question :  “  How  can  I  give  birth  to  a  son, 
when  I  am  not  even  married  ?  ”  In  answer  to  this 
the  angel  said  that  without  a  husband  and  through 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  she  would  give  birth 
to  the  child :  “The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over¬ 
shadow  thee :  Therefore  also  shall  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  be  called  the  Son  of 
God.”  Then  follows  the  lovely  narrative  of  how 
Mary  and  Joseph  went  up  to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed, 
and  there  in  a  manger,  “  because  there  was  no  room 
for  them  in  the  inn,”  Mary  gave  birth  to  the  Sav¬ 
iour  of  the  world. 

Such,  in  brief,  are  the  narratives  of  the  birth  of 
Christ.  They  are  found  in  documents  which,  by 
common  consent,  go  back  to  the  Apostolic  age,  at 
least  to  the  first  century.  Leaving  aside  all  theories 
as  to  inspiration,  these  two  men,  Matthew  and 
Luke,  are,  on  the  face  of  the  Gospels  they  wrote, 
serious-minded  men,  sensible,  earnest  and  honest. 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


17 


One  of  them,  Luke,  because  in  a  subsequent  book, 
the  book  of  the  Acts,  he  touches  upon  a  great  deal 
of  the  geography  and  politics  of  the  Roman  world, 
stands  out  as  one  of  the  most  reliable  historians  the 
world  has  ever  known.  In  the  introduction  to  his 
Gospel,  just  before  he  relates  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
Luke  tells  us  that  he  has  made  every  effort  to  get 
from  the  original  sources  the  facts  about  Jesus 
which  he  relates.  Those  who  deny,  or  are  indiffer¬ 
ent  to,  the  Virgin  Birth  have  made  much  of  the 
silence  of  the  other  two  Gospels,  Mark  and  John, 
on  the  subject.  That  silence,  in  its  place,  I  will 
hereafter  explain.  But  how  much  these  contemn¬ 
ers  of  the  Virgin  Birth  must  have  wished  that  for 
their  purposes  of  denial  or  discounting  it  had  been 
the  great  historian  Luke  who  was  silent  on  the 
subject,  instead  of  the  fragmentary  Mark  or  the 
philosophical  John. 

These  narratives  are  in  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke  as  we  possess  them.  But,  the  question 
will  be  asked,  Do  they  deserve  to  be  there  ?  Do  the 
most  ancient  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
contain  them?  Our  revised  English  Bible  did  not, 
of  course,  drop  down  from  heaven  just  as  we 
possess  it.  It  is  a  translation  made  by  devout 
scholars  based  upon  a  study  and  comparison  of  the 
oldest  documents  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
original  autographs  of  the  Gospels  are  lost.  The 
nearest  we  can  come  to  them  is  through  the  ancient 
manuscripts.  The  text  of  our  Bible  is  built  up  on 


18  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  authority  of  the  manuscripts.  For  example, 
one  will  see  in  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  Mark’s 
Gospel  a  statement  that  the  last  verses  of  the 
Gospel  are  wanting  from  many  ancient  manu¬ 
scripts.  And  in  John’s  Gospel  one  will  see  that 
the  story  of  Christ  and  the  woman  taken  in 

i  * 

adultery  is  bracketed,  with  the  statement  that 
[these  verses  are  not  found  in  many  of  the  an- 
1  cient  manuscripts.  It  would  greatly  strengthen 
the  case  of  those  who  wish  to  reject  the  Virgin 
Birth  if  it  should  be  discovered  that  the  Birth 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  are  wanting 
from  many  of  the  ancient  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  upon  appealing  to  those 
manuscripts,  what  do  we  find?  We  find  that  there 
is  not  a  single  unmutilated  manuscript  of  the  New 
Testament  which  does  not  contain  the  Birth  narra¬ 
tives.  The  same  is  true  of  the  ancient  versions  of 
the  New  Testament,  or  the  translation  from  the 
Greek  into  the  popular  tongues  of  the  different 
countries.  Every  manuscript  and  every  version 
bears  witness  that  the  Birth  narratives  are  genuine 
sections  of  the  two  Gospels  in  which  they  are 
found,  and  furthermore,  as  Wiess  says,  “  there 
never  were  forms  of  Matthew  or  Luke  without  the 
Infancy  narratives.” 

Confronted  by  the  overwhelming  evidence  of 
the  manuscripts,  the  enemies  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
next  try  to  discredit  the  narratives  by  saying  that 
these  sections  which  tell  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY?  19 

although  found  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels,  were  probably  not  parts  of  the  original 
Gospels,  but  are  additions,  or  interpolations.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  this,  and  all  efforts 
to  disintegrate  the  integrity  of  the  Birth  narratives 
have  failed  completely.  There  is  nothing  to  favour 
it,  save  the  disinclinations  of  these  men  to  believe 
such  a  thing.  The  Virgin  Birth  ought  not  to  have 
happened;  according  to  their  naturalistic  theories, 
it  did  not  happen;  therefore,  these  verses  which  say 
it  did  happen  must  be  the  work  of  the  interpolator. 
But  their  clever  manipulations,  dropping  out  a 
verse  here  and  a  clause  there,  are  all  palpably  in¬ 
adequate.  The  verses  which  tell  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  original  narratives 
as  the  old  foundations  under  a  church  rebuilt  are  a 
part  of  the  original  building.  Moreover,  supposing 
for  a  moment  that  some  interpolator  had  tampered 
with  the  original  documents  and  grafted  on  to 
them  the  stories  of  Virgin  Birth,  why  then  did 
he  not  complete  his  work  by  striking  out  the 
two  tables  of  genealogy  which  have  ever  been  a 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  Virgin 
Birth?  If  a  fabricator  added  these  verses  to  gain 
credence  for  the  Virgin  Birth,  surely  he  never 
would  have  allowed  the  tables  of  genealogy  to 
stand  as  they  are. 

Unable  to  discredit  the  Birth  narratives  on  the 
ground  of  their  non-genuineness  or  non-integrity, 
the  enemies  of  the  doctrine  bring  up  objections. 


20  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


First  of  all,  they  mention  what  I  have  just  adverted 
to,  the  two  tables  of  genealogy.  Two  problems  are 
involved  in  these  tables,  one,  the  apparent  discrep^ 
ancy  between  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  That  is 
a  matter  which  does  not  bear  on  our  present  sub¬ 
ject.  But  the  second  problem  does.  It  is  that  these 
tables  seem  to  give  the  genealogy  or  descent  of 
Jesus,  not  through  Mary,  but  through  Joseph. 
This  is  not  the  place  to  go  into  the  detail  of  these 
tables.  All  that  we  need  to  show  now  is,  that  the 
very  men  who  put  these  tables  in  their  Gospels, 
Matthew  and  Luke,  are  the  men  who  tell  of  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  and  yet  are  conscious 
of  no  contradiction  between  those  narratives  which 
say  Jesus  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the 
tables  which  seem  to  trace  His  descent  through 
Joseph.  More  than  that,  not  only  are  they  con¬ 
scious  of  no  contradiction,  but  they  are  careful  in 
writing  these  tables  not  to  say  that  Joseph  was  the 
father  of  Jesus.  Matthew  employs  a  periphrasis 
saying,  “  And  Jacob  begat  Joseph  the  husband  of 
Mary,  of  whom — the  feminine  pronoun — was  bom 
Jesus  who  is  called  Christ,”  whereas  Luke  says, 
“  Jesus  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age, 
being  as  was  supposed ,  the  son  of  Joseph,  which 
was  the  son  of  Heli.” 

Again,  attention  is  called  to  statements  in  these 
Gospels  where  Jesus  is  referred  to  as  the  son  of 
Joseph;  for  example,  “  the  carpenter’s  son”; 
“  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph”; 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


21 


“  Joseph’s  son.”  And  how  else  could  these  people 
of  Bethlehem,  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  and  else¬ 
where,  have  spoken  of  Jesus?  The  people  knew 
no  differently,  and  to  all  outward  appearances 
Joseph  was  the  father  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  strange 
that  they  thus  referred  to  Jesus.  The  strange 
thing  would  have  been  if  they  had  thought  of  Jesus 
as  other  than  the  son  of  Joseph.  But  what  of  the 
other  references,  not  by  the  people  at  large,  but  by 
Luke  himself,  where  three  times  he  speaks  of  “  his 
parents,”  and  where  Mary  herself  said  to  Jesus, 
“  Thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing  ”? 
Luke  is  conscious  of  no  conflict  in  thus  referring 
to  Joseph  as  the  father  of  Jesus.  To  the  people 
Jesus  was  only  Joseph’s  son.  Thus  the  evangelist 
reflects  the  popular  thought  of  Jesus  in  relationship 
to  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  at  the  same  time  gives  the 
true  information  about  His  supernatural  birth. 
Here  they  speak  of  Jesus  as  Joseph’s  son,  as  out¬ 
wardly  He  was ;  and  here  they  tell  of  how  He  was 
conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  Only  a  man  who  did  not  wish  to 
receive  the  doctrine  would  ever  have  thought  this 
double  reference  strange,  or  that  it  pointed  to 
fabrication  and  fraud. 

Another  objection  brought  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  the  silence  of  other  portions 
of  the  New  Testament.  Mark’s  Gospel  is  silent  on 
the  subject,  also  John,  so  also  Paul.  In  the  book 
of  the  Acts,  where  we  have  a  record  of  the  first 


22  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


preaching  of  Christ  to  the  world  by  the  apostles, 
there  is  no  reference  to  the  Virgin  Birth.  Because 
of  this  it  is  held  that  the  authority  of  the  narratives 
in  Matthew  and  Luke  is  broken  down,  for,  we  are 
told,  it  is  inconceivable  that  if  these  other  writers 
knew  of  the  Virgin  Birth  they  would  have  kept 
silent  about  it.  But  is  it  ?  Let  us  see. 

The  argument  ex  silentio  is  generally  an  un¬ 
sound  one,  never  more  so  than  in  this  instance. 
Mark  says  nothing  about  a  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ. 
Granted.  But  what  of  it?  Neither  does  he  speak 
of  the  birth  of  Christ  in  any  form  whatever. 
Would  you  infer  from  that  silence  that  therefore 
Jesus  never  was  born,  never  came  into  the  world 
at  all?  Certainly  not.  Where  does  Mark’s  Gospel 
begin?  With  the  Baptism  of  Jesus,  or  the  public 
life  and  ministry  of  Jesus.  The  fact  that  he  does 
not  write  about  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus  in 
no  way  invalidates  the  facts  related  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  any  more  than  McMasters,  in  his  history 
of  the  United  States,  which  commences  with  the 
year  1784,  invalidates  the  facts  about  the  colonial 
history  of  the  United  States  which  are  related  by 
Bancroft.  You  might  as  well  argue  that  there  was 
no  Declaration  of  Independence  and  no  Bunker 
Hill,  because  there  is  no  mention  of  these  events  in 
a  history  of  the  United  States  which  commenced 
with  the  Civil  War,  as  to  argue  that  there  was  no 
Virgin  Birth  because  Mark,  who  records  the  public 
life  of  Jesus,  makes  no  reference  to  it.  The  birth 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


23 


and  childhood  of  Jesus  lay  outside  the  scope  and 
plan  of  his  treatise. 

But  what  about  John?  Since  his  Gospel  comes 
latest,  well  along  in  the  apostolic  age,  no  one  can 
think  that  John  could  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  or  of  the  traditions  and 
narratives  which  dealt  with  the  supposed  fact.  He 
must  have  been  familiar  with  the  writings  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  He  must  have  known  all  that 
there  was  to  know,  for  it  was  into  his  keeping  that 
Jesus,  on  the  Cross,  committed  His  mother  for 
maintenance  and  filial  affection.  If  Jesus  were 
born  of  the  Virgin,  it  is  inconceivable  that  John 
should  not  have  known  of  it.  Again,  if  these  were 
only  idle  tales,  and  thus  reflecting  on  the  honour  of 
Christ  and  of  Mary,  would  John  have  kept  silence? 
But  he  did  keep  silence.  He  did  not  say  a  word  to 
repudiate  the  statements  of  Luke  and  Matthew,  and 
the  only  rational  interpretation  of  that  silence  is 
that  since  he  does  not  deny  or  repudiate  the  Virgin 
Birth,  he  accepts  it  and  takes  it  for  granted. 
Although  John  does  not  directly  refer  to  the  Virgin 
Birth,  in  his  sublime  prologue  stating  only  the  fact 
of  the  Incarnation,  that  the  Word  became  flesh, 
his  narrative  agrees  with  the  Virgin  Birth.  John, 
not  less  than  men  today,  must  have  asked  himself 
about  the  manner  of  the  coming  of  this  tremendous 
personality,  the  God-Man  of  his  Gospel,  into  the 
world.  All  others  must  be  born  again,  not  of 
flesh,  nor  the  will  of  man,  but  of  the  will  of  God. 


24  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


But  if  Jesus  escaped  that  universal  necessity  of 
regeneration,  upon  what  ground  was  it?  It  must 
have  been  because  he  did  not  share  by  natural 
generation  the  sinful  stain  of  our  fallen  nature. 
The  point  of  the  argument  is  that  the  Christ  of 
John’s  Gospel  is  such  a  person,  such  a  character, 
as  cannot  be  accounted  for  in  any  natural  way. 
The  miracle  of  the  Virgin  Birth  does  account  for 
Him,  and  since  John  not  only  does  not  repudiate 
that  teaching  of  Cuke  and  Matthew,  but  has  many 
utterances  about  Christ  which  beautifully  agree 
with  the  narrative  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  the  reason¬ 
able  inference  is  that  he  did  know  of  the  narratives 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  accepted  them  because  he 
knew  them  to  be  true.  There  is  an  interesting  tra¬ 
dition,  too,  about  John  once  leaving  the  bath  at 
Ephesus  when  the  Gnostic  heretic,  Cerinthus,  came 
in,  because  of  his  profound  aversion  for  that 
heretic.  One  of  the  things  which  Cerinthus  taught 
was  the  natural  generation  of  Jesus  with  Joseph 
and  Mary  as  His  parents.  The  profound  aversion 
of  John  for  Cerinthus  is  unexplainable,  if  John, 
like  Cerinthus,  believed  that  Joseph  was-  the  father 
of  Jesus;  but  it  is  perfectly  clear  if  John  knew  and 
believed  with  his  whole  heart  that  the  Word  be¬ 
came  flesh,  being  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
bom  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

A  case  parallel  with  John’s  account  of  the  com¬ 
ing  of  Christ  is  his  account  of  the  advent  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Matthew  and  Luke  give  in  detail  the 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


25 


story  of  the  birth  of  the  Baptist,  just  as  they  do 
with  the  birth  of  Jesus,  telling  us  of  John’s  parents, 
Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  and  the  angel’s  annunci¬ 
ation.  But  all  that  John  says  of  the  coming  of 
John  the  Baptist  is  that  “  there  was  a  man  sent 
from  God  whose  name  was  John.”  Yet  who 
would  argue  from  this  silence  of  John  that  he  had 
never  heard  of  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth?  One 
would  have  as  good  reason  for  saying  that  John 
had  never  heard  of  the  circumstances  of  John  the 
Baptist’s  birth  because  in  telling  of  John’s  coming 
he  says  nothing  about  them  as  for  believing  that 
he  knew  nothing  of  the  Virgin  Birth  because  he 
makes  no  definite  reference  to  it  in  telling  of  the 
advent  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  next  silence  with  which  we  must  deal,  and 
which  is  brought  up  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth,  is  that  of  St.  Paul.  Let  it  be  granted 
that  there  is  no  definite  statement  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  in  Paul’s  writings,  though  this  is  far  from 
what  a  recent  writer  says  when  he  describes  deniers 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  comforting  themselves  with 
the  assurance  that  they  have  given  up  nothing  vital 
in  Christian  faith  because  they  remember  that  John 
and  Paul  do  not  even  “  distantly  allude  ”  to  it.  In 
his  convincing  book  on  the  Virgin  Birth,  Dr. 
James  Orr  points  out  the  indisputable  fact  that 
Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  Incarnation  of  Christ, 
always  employed  “  some  significant  peculiarity  of 
expression  ”  such  as  “  God  sending  His  Son  ” 


26  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


(Rom.  1 :  3 ;  5  :  12)  ;  “  becoming  in  the  likeness  of 
men”  (Philippians  2:7);  and  the  unusual  Greek 
form  in  Galatians  4:4,  “born  of  a  woman.”  In 
view  of  this,  to  say  that  Paul  does  not  even 
“  distantly  allude  ”  to  the  Virgin  Birth  is  a  rather 
sweeping  claim,  a  peculiar  example  of  that  back- 
handed  dogmatism  with  which  the  rationalists  are 
always  reproaching  men  who  accept  the  facts  of 
the  New  Testament  as  facts. 

Paul  hardly  ever  refers  to  the  incidents  of 
Christ’s  earthly  life,  save  His  death,  and  what  im¬ 
mediately  preceded  it,  the  Lord’s  Supper.  The 
Resurrection  is  the  great  confirmatory  miracle  with 
which  Paul  deals.  But  his  intimate  knowledge  of 
the  facts  of  the  Resurrection,  as  well  as  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  indicates  a  full  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  facts  of  Christ’s  life.  It  would  have 
been  strange,  indeed,  if  this  great  initial  fact  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  was  never  told  to  Paul  by  any  of  the 
disciples  with  whom  he  talked,  or  by  Luke  himself, 
who  was  the  travelling  companion  of  Paul,  and 
must  have  had  some  of  the  material  for  his  Gospel 
in  hand  at  that  time.  Moreover,  aside  from  all 
definite  references,  Paul  taught  the  universal  guilt 
and  sinfulness  of  man  through  inherited  transgres¬ 
sion.  Yet  Christ  without  sin,  comes  to  redeem 
sinners.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  John,  Paul’s  the¬ 
ology  required  a  miracle  of  incarnation  which 
would  give  Jesus  a  personality  free  from  the  cor¬ 
ruption  of  original  sin.  The  Virgin  Birth  supplies 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


27 


the  miracle.  I  cannot  conceive  that  Paul  was 
ignorant  of  it.  Certainly  he  does  not  repudiate  it. 
On  the  contrary,  such  an  expression  as  Gal.  4 : 4, 
“  sent  forth  His  Son,  bom  of  a  woman,”  might 
well  have  come  from  the  lips  of  a  man  who  knew 
and  believed  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

But  even  could  it  be  proven  (which,  of  course, 
it  cannot)  that  neither  John  nor  Paul  even  “  dis¬ 
tantly  allude  ”  to  the  Virgin  Birth,  that  silence 
would  be  no  warrant  for  rejecting  the  doctrine. 
Upon  the  same  ground  great  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  narratives  could  be  rejected.  The  Lord’s 
Supper  would  have  to  go,  because  that  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,  and  who  on  the  last  night  at  the 
Passover  Supper  leaned  upon  Plis  breast,  in  his 
Gospel  tells  nothing  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper.  Likewise  the  Transfiguration  must  go, 
because  of  the  four  Gospels  the  only  one  written  by 
one  of  the  three  disciples  who  went  up  the  mount 
with  Jesus,  that  of  John,  says  nothing  about  it. 
So  also  the  Ascension  of  Christ  must  be  discarded 
because  Matthew  in  his  long  and  full  narrative  tells 
us  nothing  of  the  ascension  of  Our  Lord.  The 
Whole  Christian  tradition  would  disintegrate,  did 
we  apply  this  rule  of  the  argument  from  silence. 

The  impregnable  position  held  by  the  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  in  Christian  literature  and  life 
is  strikingly  witnessed  to  by  the  complete  unsatis¬ 
factoriness  of  the  theories  which  would  account  for 
the  presence  of  this  belief  and  its  record  in  the 


28  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Christian  literature  upon  some  other  hypothesis 
than  that  of  historic  fact.  The  tradition  was  pres¬ 
ent  at  a  very  early  date  in  the  Christian  community. 
How  did  it  arise,  if  not  from  the  fact?  Some  have 
suggested  that  it  came  from  Jewish  sources.  Dis¬ 
ciples  of  Jesus  believed  that  He  was  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  were  ready  to  at¬ 
tribute  to  Him  some  miraculous  entry  in  the  world. 
Musing  over  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Matthew,  or  some  other,  came  upon  the  prophecy 
in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Isaiah,  “  Behold  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his 
name  Immanuel.”  Ready  to  ascribe  any  wonder 
to  Christ,  Matthew  is  said  to  have  taken  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  a  Virgin  Birth  from  the  prophet,  and 
fabricated  a  story  that  Jesus  was  so  bom  and  put 
the  tale  into  his  Gospel,  and  after  the  same  manner, 
Duke.  In  other  words,  the  prophecy  suggested  the 
narrative  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  But  both  Christian 
and  Jewish  scholars  are  agreed  that  this  verse  in 
Isaiah  was  never  used  with  Messianic  application 
before  Christ  was  bom,  and  that  nowhere  in  Israel 
was  there  the  expectation  that  the  Christ  was  to  be 
bom  of  a  virgin.  The  prophecy  could  not  have 
suggested  or  inspired  the  narrative  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  but  it  was  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  which 
threw  its  illumination  upon  the  prophecy. 

Another  favourite  hypothesis  has  been  that  the 
Christian  disciples  tried  to  account  for  the  pre¬ 
eminence  of  Jesus  by  applying  to  him  a  myth  of 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


29 


miraculous  conception  and  birth  after  the  manner 
of  the  Pagans.  A  popular  preacher  has  well  stated 
this  hypothesis  in  one  of  his  sermons: 

“  To  believe  in  Virgin  Birth  as  an  explanation 
of  great  personality,”  he  says,  “  is  one  of  the  fa¬ 
miliar  ways  in  which  the  ancient  world  was  accus¬ 
tomed  to  account  for  unusual  superiority.  Many 
people  suppose  that  only  once  in  history  do  we  run 
across  a  record  of  supernatural  birth.  Upon  the 
contrary,  stories  of  miraculous  generation  are 
among  the  commonest  traditions  of  antiquity. 
Especially  is  this  true  about  the  founders  of  great 
religions.  According  to  the  records  of  their  faiths, 
Buddha  and  Zoroaster  and  Lao-Tsze  and  Mahavira 
were  all  supernaturally  born.  Moses,  Confucius 
and  Mohammed  are  the  only  great  founders  of 
religions  in  history  to-  whom  miraculous  birth  is 
not  attributed.  That  is  to  say,  when  a  personality 
arose  so  high  that  men  adored  him,  the  ancient 
world  attributed  his  superiority  to  some  special 
divine  influence  in  his  generation,  and  they  com¬ 
monly  phrased  their  faith  in  terms  of  miraculous 
birth.  So  Pythagoras  was  called  virgin  born,  and 
Plato,  and  Augustus  Caesar,  and  many  more. 

“  Knowing  this,  there  are  within  the  evangelical 
churches  large  groups  of  people  whose  opinion 
about  our  Cord’s  coming  would  run  as  follows: 
those  first  disciples  adored  Jesus — as  we  do ;  when 
they  thought  about  His  coming,  they  were  sure 
that  He  came  specially  from  God — as  we  are ;  this 


30  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


adoration  and  conviction  they  associated  with 
God’s  special  influence  and  intention  in  His  birth — 
as  we  do;  but  they  phrased  it  in  terms  of  a  biolog¬ 
ical  miracle  that  our  modern  minids  cannot  use. 
So  far  from  thinking  that  they  have  given  up  any¬ 
thing  vital  in  the  New  Testament’s  attitude  toward 
Jesus,  these  Christians  remember  that  the  two  men 
who  contributed  most  to  the  Church’s  thought  of 
the  divine  meaning  of  the  Christ  were  Paul  and 
John,  who  never  even  distantly  allude  to  the 
Virgin  Birth.” 

Bet  us  see  what  this  implies.  In  the  case  of 
Augustus  the  myth  was  that  his  mother,  asleep  in 
the  temple  of  Apollo,  had  been  visited  by  that  god 
in  the  shape  of  a  serpent,  and  the  fruit  of  this 
miscegenation  was  Octavius,  afterwards  Augustus. 
In  any  collection  of  classic  myths  there  will  be 
found  numerous  accounts  of  the  basons  of  the 
gods  with  mortal  women— how  Alcempe,  for  ex¬ 
ample,  the  daughter  of  Electryon,  was  beloved  by 
Jupiter.  The  result  of  their  union  was  Hercules. 
But  Juno,  fiercely  jealous  of  her  lord’s  mortal 
children,  sent  two  great  serpents  to  destroy  Her¬ 
cules  as  he  lay  in  his  cradle,  but  the  precocious 
youth  strangled  them  with  his  hands.  What  these 
old  myths  tell  of  is  lust-inflamed  gods  who  visit 
women  on  earth  and  beget  children  after  a  carnal 
manner. 

In  his  article  on  Virgin  Birth  in  Hasting’s  “  En¬ 
cyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,”  J.  A.  MacCul- 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


31 


loch  points  out  that  in  the  case  of  Buddha  actual 
physical  generation  through  father  and  mother  is 
implied  in  his  birth-tales,  and  in  the  case  of 
Zoroaster  physical  generation  is  related.  Super¬ 
natural  elements  are  added,  but  as  Dr.  MacCulloch 
clearly  points  out,  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for 
saying  that  the  stories  of  the  birth  of  Zoroaster 
and  Buddha  are  comparable  to  the  New  Testament 
account  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  And  as  for  tales  of 
great  men  begotten  by  serpents,  or  of  libidinous 
pagan  gods  having  children  by  mortal  women, 
between  such  tales  and  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  Our  Lord  there  is  a  gulf  fixed.  Tertullian 
intimates  that  difference  where  he  says,  “  God’s 
own  Son  was  born,  but  not  so  born  as  to  make 
Him  ashamed  of  the  name  of  Son  or  of  His  pa¬ 
ternal  origin.  It  was  not  His  lot  to  have  as  His 
father,  by  incest  with  a  sister,  or  by  violation  of  a 
daughter,  or  another’s  wife,  a  god  in  the  shape  of 
a  serpent,  or  ox,  or  bird,  or  lover,  for  vile  ends 
transforming  himself  into  the  gold  of  Danaus. 
These  are  your  divinities  upon  whom  these  base 
deeds  of  Jupiter  were  done.” 

When  anyone  tells  us  of  these  superior  Chris¬ 
tians — “  some  of  the  best  Christian  life  and  conse¬ 
cration  of  this  generation,  multitudes  of  men  and 
women,  devout  and  reverent  Christians  ” — who 
conceive  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  as 
created  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  tales  about 
great  pagan  personalities  or  the  fabulous  heroes  of 


32  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


antiquity  were  invented,  the  reply  of  Origen  to 
Celsus  is  still  to  the  point,  “  Since  Celsus  h?.s  in¬ 
troduced  the  Jew  disputing  with  Jesus,  and  tearing 
in  pieces,  as  he  imagines,  the  fiction  of  His  birth 
from  a  Virgin,  comparing  the  Greek  fables  about 
Danae,  and  Melanippe,  and  Auge,  and  Antiope, 
our  answer  is  that  such  language  becomes  a  buffoon 
and  not  one  who  is  writing  in  a  serious  tone.” 
Perhaps  in  the  whole  history  of  anti-Christian 
propaganda  nothing  so  preposterous  has  ever  been 
suggested  as  that  the  early  Christian  community, 
so  intensely  prejudiced  against  the  pagan  thought 
and  custom — so  much  so  that  rather  than  conform 
to  it  they  would  give  up  life  itself — borrowed  from 
the  pagans  the  myth  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  ac¬ 
counted  for  their  Saviour  and  Redeemer  after  the 
manner  of  the  heathen. 

Where,  then,  did  this  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
arise?  It  could  not  have  come  from  Jewish 
sources,  neither  could  it  have  been  borrowed  from 
the  Gentile  world.  Whence  came  it?  It  came 
from  the  fact.  The  only  explanation  of  the  belief, 
received  and  defended  by  the  whole  Church,  is  that 
Christ,  as  the  narrative  tells  us,  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  bom  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

II — -THE  MEANING  OE  THE  EACT 

We  hear  it  frequently  said,  today,  that,  accepted 
or  rejected,  the  Virgin  Birth  does  not  in  any  vital 
way  affect  Christian  faith  and  doctrine.  Such  a 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


33 


view  certainly  has  not  been  that  of  the  foes  of 
Christianity  who,  from  age  to  age,  have  directed 
their  assault  upon  this  article  of  the  Christian 
creed.  Nor  can  such  a  view  be  held  in  reality  by 
those  within  the  Church,  today,  who  speak  lightly 
of  the  Virgin  Birth,  for  one  of  their  chief  argu¬ 
ments  against  it  is  the  argument  ex  silentio, 
namely,  that  if  true,  such  a  doctrine  would  never 
have  been  left  out  of  the  other  two  Gospels  or  the 
writings  of  Paul,  which  means  that  the  doctrine, 
out  of  the  mouth  of  its  critics,  is  a  most  important 
one.  In  their  conflicts  with  Judaism  and  heathen¬ 
ism  the  early  Church  constantly  appealed  to  the 
Virgin  Birth  as  witnessing  to  the  full  humanity, 
and  also  the  deity  and  the  sinlessness  of  Christ. 
Certainly  the  force  of  the  argument  is  not  less 
needed,  today,  than  it  was  in  the  days  of  Gnostics 
and  Docetists  and  Ebionites. 

The  Virgin  Birth,  although  strangely  neglected 
and  overlooked  in  the  modern  literature  of  evi¬ 
dences  and  apologetics,  just  as  miracles  and  proph¬ 
ecy  are,  witnesses  to  the  following  truths  about 
Jesus  Christ : 

1.  The  Historical  Reality  of  His  Person.  Any 
man’s  life  and  personality  consists  of  a  series  of 
facts,  where  he  was  born,  and  of  whom,  where  he 
has  lived  and  what  he  has  done,  and  where  and 
when  he  died  and  was  buried.  The  earthly  life  of 
Jesus  is  not  otherwise.  It  is  made  up  of  a  series 
of  facts,  and  only  those  facts  give  us  any  concep- 


3 4  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


tion  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Just  as  all  that  we 
see  of  a  building  rests  upon  its  foundations,  so  the 
great  Personality  of  Christ  rests  upon  the  facts  of 
His  earthly  life.  This  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is 
the  initial  fact  of  the  earthly  life  of  Our  Lord,  it 
is  one  of  that  series  of  facts  which,  taken  together, 
present  to  us  the  glorious  Person,  Jesus  Christ. 
We  have  no  Christ  but  the  Christ  of  those  facts. 
Since  this  is  true,  this  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  the 
initial  fact  of  His  life,  is  an  essential  fact.  If  it 
goes,  all  that  follows  goes.  The  only  Christ  we 
know  is  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that 
Christ  was  bom  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  That  fact 
about  Him  is  as  carefully  attested  as  any  other 
fact  of  His  life.  Therefore,  the  denial  of  it  in¬ 
volves  the  denial  of  Christ,  for  it  permits,  in  turn, 
the  denial  of  any  other  fact  of  the  life  of  Christ. 

2.  The  Virgin  Birth  witnesses  to  the  Deity  of 
Christ.  Here  and  there  we  hear  a  voice  which  says 
that  the  deity  of  Christ  is  not  involved  in  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  that  a  man  can  still 
cling  to  the  deity  of  Our  Lord  although  he  rejects 
His  Virgin  Birth.  Theoretically,  this  might  seem 
true;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  vast  majority  of 
those  who  reject  the  Virgin  Birth  deny  also  the 
deity  of  Christ.  One  follows  the  other  in  natural 
and  logical  sequence.  Early  cherished  beliefs,  and 
a  loyalty  to  Christ  which  is  the  heritage  handed 
down  from  believing  men  and  women  who  received 
all  the  New  Testament  facts  about  Christ  may 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


35 


keep  a  man  from  plunging  into  that  pit  of  darkness 
and  despair  which  go  with  a  denial  that  Jesus  was 
the  Son  of  God.  But  has  the  world  ever  yet  seen  a 
man  who  denied  the  Virgin  Birth  who  either  did 
not  fall  in  that  abyss  or  totter  in  peril  on  its  brink  ? 
Whatever  new  theology  may  think  of  the  doctrinal 
bearing  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  the  most  direct  witness 
to  the  deity  of  Christ  found  anywhere  in  the  Bible 
bases  that  deity  upon  the  Virgin  Birth,  for  so  the 
Angel  said  to  Mary,  “  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall 
overshadow  thee :  therefore  also  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God.” 

Dr.  Charles  Briggs,  in  his  article  “  Criticism 
and  Dogma,”  published  in  “  The  North  American 
Review,”  in  1906,  thus  witnesses  to  the  place  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  in  Christian  faith : 

“  The  philosophical  difficulties  which  beset  the 
doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  do  not  concern  the 
Virgin  Birth  in  particular,  but  the  Incarnation  in 
general.  Indeed,  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
seems  to  be  the  only  way  of  overcoming  the  chief 
difficulties.  If  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God  became 
incarnate  by  ordinary  generation,  we  could  not 
escape  the  conclusion  that  a  human  individual 
person  was  begotten.  The  Incarnation  would  then 
not  be  a  real  Incarnation,  but  an  inhabitation  of 
Jesus  by  the  Son  of  God,  with  two  distinct  person¬ 
alities,  that  of  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God  and  that 


86  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


!  of  the  begotten  son  of  Joseph.  .  .  .  The  man  Jesus 
would  be  a  prophet,  a  hero,  a  great  exemplar,  but 
not  the  Saviour  of  mankind.  He  might  be  the  last 
and  greatest  of  the  heroes  of  Faith,  but  not  God 
Incarnate.  Only  a  God-man  who  had  taken  human 
nature  into  organic  union  with  Himself  and  so 
identified  Himself  with  the  human  race  as  to  be¬ 
come  the  common  man,  the  second  Adam,  the  head 
of  the  race,  could  redeem  the  race.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  gives  such  a  God-man.  Nat¬ 
ural  generation  could  not  possibly  give  us  such  a 
God-man.  Therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the  Incarnation, 
as  the  Incarnation  is  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and 
Christian  Salvation.” 

Dr.  Briggs  then  states  that  while  the  Virgin 
Birth  is  essential  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  he  does 
not  feel  that  it  is  essential  to  the  faith  or  Christian 
life  of  individuals.  “  The  doctrine  may  for  vari¬ 
ous  reasons  be  so  difficult  for  them  that  they  can¬ 
not  honestly  accept  it.”  He  seems  to  make  a 
distinction  between  what  the  Church  can  tolerate 
and  what  it  can  endorse.  Yet  he  fully  grants,  and 
ably  demonstrates,  the  essential  place  which  the 
Virgin  Birth  holds  in  Christian  faith.  “  For  it  is 
a  dogma  which  is  inextricably  involved  in  the 
Christological  principle  that  lies  at  the  basis  of 
Christian  Dogma  and  Christian  Institutions.  They 
cannot  possibly  recognize  that  the  birth  of  Christ 
was  by  ordinary  human  generation,  for  that  would 


BORN  OF  THE  VIRGIN  MARY? 


37 


be  a  revival  of  the  Nestorian  heresy  and  be  a  denial 
of  all  the  Christian  Philosophy  of  the  centuries, 
with  all  the  serious  consequences  therein  involved. 
It  would  turn  back  the  dial  of  Christianity  nearly 
two  thousand  years ;  it  would  break  with  Historical 
Christianity  and  its  apostolic  foundation,  and  im¬ 
peril  Christianity  itself.” 

3.  The  Virgin  Birth  witnesses  to  the  sinlessness, 
the  holiness  of  Christ,  and  to  all  the  hopes  of 
humanity  which  rest  upon  that  sinlessness.  God 
created  one  sinless  man,  sinless,  though  free  to  fall. 
That  first  man,  created  in  God’s  image,  fell,  and 
after  him  all  men  have  sinned  and  fallen.  Gener¬ 
ation  after  generation,  race  after  race,  people  after 
people,  and  nation  after  nation,  under  all  condi¬ 
tions  and  circumstances,  yet  always  the  same 
monotonous  result,  a  sinful  man,  a  corrupt  human 
nature.  Then,  according  to  our  Christian  faith, 
God  sent  forth  a  new  creation,  a  second  Adam,  the 
pre-existent  and  eternal  Son  of  God,  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  assuming  human  nature,  not  fallen  and 
stained  and  corrupted  human  nature,  but  human 
nature  as  God  created  it  in  the  beginning,  in  the 
image  of  God.  Again  the  great  experiment  is  to 
be  tried,  while  men  and  angels  and  devils  look  on 
with  breathless  interest.  Will  the  second  Adam 
fall  like  the  first  ?  Will  temptation  bring  His  fore¬ 
head,  too,  down  to  the  dust?  The  result  of  that 
experiment  is  the  record  of  the  Gospels.  Christ 
kept  perfectly  the  law  of  God,  and  by  virtue  of  that 


38  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


perfect  obedience  demonstrated  and  won  His  right 
to  be  our  Redeemer  and  to  make  satisfaction  for 
our  sins. 

All  the  rivers  of  Christian  theology  become  one 
great  life-giving  stream  in  the  Cross  of  Christ. 
But  if  Jesus  were  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  then 
He  was  not  free  from  the  taint  of  sin,  He  was  not 
separate  from  sinners.  You  have  left  in  that 
manger-cradle  at  Bethlehem  the  child  who  may  be¬ 
come  a  world’s  great  prophet,  leader,  dreamer,  re¬ 
former,  but  Jesus,  the  Saviour,  the  Redeemer,  is 
gone!  Christ  is  lost  to  humanity!  Wise  men  of 
the  East,  take  back  your  gifts  which  you  have  laid 
at  His  cradled  feet,  for  the  child  is  not  the  King  of 
Heaven  and  Earth.  Shepherds,  standing  in  silent 
awe  in  the  lowly  cavern  where  the  young  child  lies, 
go  back  to  your  sheep  upon  the  fields,  for  this 
world  and  its  cares  are  the  only  reality!  Angels, 
whose  music  comes  floating  down  from  heaven’s 
gates,  silence  your  sweet  songs  and  leave  mankind 
to  the  grim  music  of  its  sobs  and  moans  and  curses 
and  blasphemies.  Star  of  Bethlehem,  tender  day¬ 
spring  from  on  high,  go  out  and  leave  this  world 
in  the  blackness  of  darkness,  forever  groping  in 
endless  cycles  with  its  lusts  and  its  illusions,  for 
Jesus  is  not  that  Holy  thing  which  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God,  and  shall  save  us  from  our  sins. 
He  was  horn  of  flesh  and  of  the  will  of  man,  not 
of  the  will  of  God.  Our  Christ  is  gone,  and  with 
Him  dies  the  hope  of  humanity. 


II 

DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY? 

“And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets  he 
expounded  to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  con - 
cerning  Himself.” — Luk£  24:27. 

THE  minds  of  men  are  differently  constituted. 
To  one  mind  one  kind  of  evidence  appeals 
more  strongly  than  another.  The  remark¬ 
able  thing  about  the  Christian  religion  is  that  it 
carries  with  it  all  kinds  of  evidence  to  suit  all  kinds 
of  minds.  One  appreciates  this  when  one  begins 
to  enumerate  the  different  proofs  of  the  Christian 
faith.  There  is  the  adaptation  of  Christianity  to 
the  needs  of  human  nature,  how  deep  calleth  unto 
deep.  There  is  its  rapid  spread  in  the  world  by 
purely  moral  means ;  its  congruity  with  all  the  true 
and  beautiful  that  man  has  conceived  of  before 
Christ  or  since  Christ;  the  effect  of  Christianity 
upon  the  lives  of  its  professors;  the  perfection  of 
Christian  ideals  and  morality;  the  character  of 
Jesus ;  the  miracles  of  Jesus ;  the  two  great  miracles 
certificatory  of  His  Divine  Sonship,  the  Virgin 
Birth  and  the  Resurrection  from  the  dead ;  and  last 
in  this  catalogue  of  enumeration,  but  always  first 
in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  the  preaching  of  His  apostles,  the  fulfilment 

39 


40  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  the  ancient  prophecies.  Any  kind  of  evidence 
that  a  reasonable  mind  could  ask  for,  Christianity 
has  to  present.  God  has  made  the  way  of  unbelief 
the  most  difficult  of  all  roads  for  man  to  travel. 
He  has  hedged  it  up  with  barrier  after  barrier,  so 
that  before  a  man  can  become,  or  remain  an  infidel, 
he  must  believe  moral  impossibilities. 

We  are  now  to  consider  just  one  of  the  proofs 
of  the  Christian  religion,  the  fulfilment  by  Jesus 
Christ  of  the  ancient  prophecies.  This  is  an  argu¬ 
ment  which  appeals  with  equal  power  to  believers 
and  unbelievers.  It  is  the  one  great  evidence  to 
which  the  Bible  itself  points.  It  is  the  argument 
of  Christ  about  Himself.  It  is  the  one  great  argu¬ 
ment  of  the  apostles  for  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

What  is  the  argument  from  prophecy,  and  how 
does  it  apply  to  Jesus  Christ?  The  answer  is,  that 
if  we  have  a  series  of  predictions  foretelling  clearly 
and  closely  future  events  which  no  native  shrewd¬ 
ness  and  no  clever  guess  could  have  arrived  at,  and 
the  fulfilment  of  which  could  not  have  been  cleverly 
contrived  by  an  impostor,  then  the  fulfilment  of 
these  predictions,  necessitates  a  supernatural  power 
at  work.  In  other  words,  the  fulfilment  of  proph¬ 
ecy  proves  that  Christianity  is  a  divine  revelation. 
“  To  declare  a  thing  shall  come  to  pass  long  before 
it  is  in  being,  and  then  to  bring  it  to  pass,  this  or 
nothing,  is  the  work  of  God”  (Justin  Martyr). 
As  applied  to  Christ,  the  argument  resolves  itself 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  41 


into  this :  Did  Christ  in  His  life  and  death,  and  the 
influences  which  flow  from  His  ministry,  fulfil  the 
prophecies  made  in  the  Old  Testament?  If  He 
did,  then  He  must  be  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
world’s  Saviour. 

In  this  connection  let  us  remember  that,  although 
long  and  tender  usage  has  made  the  word  “  Christ  ” 
part  of  the  personal  name  of  Jesus,  it  is  in  reality 
not  a  name,  but  a  title.  It  is  the  Greek  word 
which  means  “  the  anointed  one.”  The  Hebrew 
form  of  the  word  is  “  Messiah,”  which  also  means 
“  anointed,”  and  was  the  name  applied  by  the  Jews 
to  the  great  king,  priest,  and  prophet  for  whose 
coming  they  had  been  looking  for  long  centuries. 
Jesus  Christ  really  means,  then,  Jesus  the  Christ, 
or  the  Messiah  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Was  Jesus  really  that  Christ?  That  was  the 
wonder  in  the  mind  of  the  woman  of  Samaria 
when,  after  Jesus  had  talked  with  her  and  had 
searched  the  chambers  of  her  heart  with  His  truth, 
she  said  to  her  townsfolk :  “  Come,  see  a  man 
which  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did :  is  not  this 
the  Christ?”  One  of  the  first  disciples  of  Jesus, 
Andrew,  said  to  his  brother  Peter  when  he  asked 
him  to  come  and  talk  with  Jesus,  “  We  have  found 
the  Messias,  which  is  being  interpreted,  the  Christ.” 
Upon  the  correctness  of  that  opinion  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  Christianity  stands  or  falls.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  separating  the  New  Testament 
from  the  Old  Testament,  or  taking  the  precepts  and 


42  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  ideals  of  Jesus  apart  from  His  claims,  and  this 
greatest  of  all  claims  that  He  was  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  Blessed;  for  if  He  were  not  the  Christ, 
then  He  was  either  an  ignorant  man,  or  a  bad  man 
for  claiming  to  be  the  Christ.  The  first  disciples 
followed  Jesus  because  they  believed  He  was  the 
Messiah,  the  Christ.  The  Jews  put  Jesus  to 
death  because  He  claimed  to  be  the  Christ.  The 
disciples  of  Jesus  preached  His  Gospel  every¬ 
where  in  the  world  because  they  believed  Him 
to  be  the  Christ.  Thus  our  discussion  is  doubly 
important,  for  not  only  is  Christ  fulfilling  proph¬ 
ecy,  which  is  the  great  argument  for  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  if 
Christ  did  not  fulfil  prophecy,  then  Christianity  is 
condemned. 

This  great  evidence  is  peculiar  to  Christianity. 
No  other  religion  hazards  an  appeal  to  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  prophecy.  Christianity  accepts  this  great¬ 
est  of  tests.  If  some  centuries  before  Christ  some 
one  man  had  uttered  predictions  of  the  coming  of 
one  like  unto  Christ,  and  these  predictions  had  been 
fulfilled,  that,  in  itself,  would  be  of  infinite  impor¬ 
tance.  But  instead  of  one  man  at  one  time  in  his¬ 
tory  uttering  a  prediction  which  has  been  fulfilled, 
we  have  many  predictions  uttered  by  many  differ¬ 
ent  men  through  many  hundreds  of  years,  and  all 
at  last  converging  in  Jesus  Christ.  “  A  whole 
people  announce  Him  and  subsist  during  four 
thousand  years  in  order  to  render  as  a  body  testi- 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  43 


mony  of  the  assurances  which  they  have  of  Him, 
and  from  which  they  can  be  turned  by  no  menaces 
and  no  persecutions.”  It  is  not  strange,  then,  that 
the  fine  mind  of  Pascal  saw  in  the  fulfilment  the 
strongest  of  all  the  evidences  for  Christianity,  the 
one  which  takes  in  all  others,  for  he  said :  “  The 
greatest  of  the  proofs  of  Jesus  Christ  are  the 
prophecies.  They  are  also  what  God  has  most  pro¬ 
vided  for,  for  the  event  which  has  fulfilled  them  is 
a  miracle  which  has  subsisted  from  the  birth  of 
Christ  even  to  the  end.” 

Why,  it  may  be  asked,  do  we  pay  such  attention 
to  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament?  For  the 
reason  that  we  are  compelled  to  do  so.  Regardless 
of  the  prophecies  which  refer  to  Christ,  there  are 
many  predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  which  have 
been  strikingly  fulfilled.  For  instance,  many  of 
the  predictions  uttered  by  the  prophets  concern  the 
great  contemporary  nations  which  surrounded  Is¬ 
rael  and  warred  against  her.  One  of  the  greatest 
of  these  peoples  was  the  Assyrians,  with  their 
capital  at  Nineveh  on  the  Tigris.  In  a  passage  of 
great  eloquence  the  prophet  Nahum  predicts  the 
siege  of  Nineveh;  how  the  chariots  would  rage  in 
her  highways,  the  scarlet  uniforms  flash  in  the 
streets,  and  the  cypress  spears  be  brandished.  We 
can  hear  the  rumble  of  the  wheels,  the  crack  of  the 
whips,  and  behold  the  dismal  heaps  of  the  slain, 
the  spoiling  of  the  temples  and  the  palaces.  When 
the  Medes  took,  and  destroyed,  Nineveh  they  were 


44  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


aided  by  a  sudden  rise  of  the  Tigris,  which  swept 
away  a  part  of  the  city’s  wall.  Even  this  seems  to 
have  been  predicted  by  Nahum,  for  he  says,  “  The 
gates  of  the  rivers  are  opened,  and  the  palace  is 
dissolved.”  So  completely  was  Nineveh  destroyed, 
and  so  utterly  did  it  sink  beneath  the  horizon  of 
antiquity  that  even  in  classical  times  it  became  a 
myth,  and  in  his  Anabasis,  Xenophon  tells  us  how 
Cyrus  and  his  Ten  Thousand  Greeks  camped  near 
some  vast  ruins  which  they  supposed  to  be  Nine¬ 
veh.  It  was  not  until  1845  that  the  very  site  of 
Niveneh  was  rediscovered  by  the  spade  of  the 
archaeologist.  I  cite  this  one  instance  of  a  strik¬ 
ingly  fulfilled  prophecy,  to  show  how  any  pre¬ 
diction  which  we  find  in  the  Old  Testament 
deserves  to  be  taken  seriously. 

We  turn  now  to  a  different  class  of  predictions 
in  the  Old  Testament — those  which  relate  to  the 
Christ,  the  Messiah.  We  cannot  avoid  these  pre¬ 
dictions  even  if  we  would,  for  they  confront  us, 
not  merely  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  as  well.  Over 
and  over  again,  the  Gospels,  particularly  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  tells  us  that  this  or  that  fact  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  was  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy, — “  that 
the  Scriptures  might  be  fulfilled,”  is  the  refrain 
which  sounds  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament. 
Not  only  did  these  men  believe  that  Christ  was 
fulfilling  the  prophecies,  but  Christ,  Himself,  be¬ 
lieved  that  He  was,  and  said  that  He  was. 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  45 


“  Search  the  Scriptures,”  said  He,  “  for  these  are 
they  which  testify  of  me”;  “Moses  wrote  of 
me  ” ;  “  The  Son  of  Man  goeth  as  it  was  written 
of  Him.”  When  He  walked  with  the  two  dis¬ 
ciples  on  the  road  to  Emmaus  on  the  day  of  the 
Resurrection,  and  wished  to  prove  to  them  His 
identity,  that  He  was  really  that  Jesus  whom  they 
had  known  in  the  flesh,  He  did  not  work  any 
miracle  for  them,  nor  appeal  to  some  of  His  great 
sayings  with  which  they  might  be  familiar  and 
thus  confirm  His  personality,  but  He  took  them 
back  into  the  Old  Testament  and  said,  “  O  fools, 
and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets 
have  spoken:  Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered 
these  things  and  to  have  entered  into  his  glory? 
And  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  he 
expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  scriptures  the 
things  concerning  himself.”  Again,  when  Jesus 
was  on  trial  before  the  council  of  the  Jews,  and 
even  by  perjury  and  slander  they  could  not  get 
sufficient  evidence  to  convict  Him,  the  high  priest 
put  Jesus  on  oath  and  said  to  Him,  “  I  adjure 
thee  by  the  living  God  that  thou  tell  us  whether 
thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.”  And  Jesus 
answered,  “  I  am.” 

The  same  testimony  to  the  fact  that  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  the  Christ  is  made  by  the  apostles 
when  they  began  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  world. 
They  had  little  or  nothing  to  say  about  the  lovely 
character  of  Jesus,  which  seems  to  be  the  whole 


46  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


content  of  much  modern  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
but  declared  that  His  Incarnation  and  Death  and 
Resurrection  and  Ascension  and  the  bestowal  by 
Him  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  facts  that  had  all  been 
foretold  centuries  before  by  the  prophets  concern¬ 
ing  the  Christ,  and  that  since  Jesus  fulfilled  these 
prophecies  He  must  be  the  Christ;  publicly  show¬ 
ing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ,  and 
that  therefore  men  must  obey  Him  and  believe  in 
Him.  As  Peter  put  it  in  his  great  sermon,  “To 
him,  all  prophets  bear  witness.” 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  Jesus  claimed  that  He 
fulfilled  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  and  that 
therefore  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 
Now  let  us  turn  to  these  predictions  of  the  Old 
Testament  which  Jesus  claimed  He  fulfilled.  At 
the  very  beginning  of  the  Bible,  we  find  that  here 
is  a  book  which  is  looking  forward  to  a  great  event 
in  the  future.  This  series  of  promises  for  the 
future  begins  with  the  first  announcement  of  the 
Gospel,  that  the  Seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise 
the  head  of  the  serpent.  To  Abraham,  in  his  day, 
it  was  predicted  that  in  his  seed,  through  his  de¬ 
descendants,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed.  Moses,  the  great  law-giver,  assures  the 
people  that  in  the  future  God  will  raise  up  a  great 
successor.  Even  prophets  outside  of  Israel,  under 
the  Divine  Spirit,  foretell  the  coming  of  a  myste¬ 
rious  Person,  as  when  Balaam  predicted  on  the 
mount  of  Moab :  “  I  shall  see  him  but  not  now :  I 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  47 


shall  behold  him  but  not  nigh.  There  shall  come 
forth  a  star  out  of  Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  shall  rise 
out  of  Israel.”  The  victorious  reign  of  David  and 
the  peaceful  reign  of  his  successor,  Solomon,  serve 
as  a  foil  to  illustrate  a  greater  King  and  Kingdom 
of  the  future — a  King  who  is  to  have  the  heathen 
for  His  inheritance  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  for  His  possession;  who  shall  have  dominion 
from  sea  to  sea;  whose  Name  shall  endure  for¬ 
ever,  and  in  whom  all  men  and  all  nations  shall  be 
blessed.  The  great  prophets  who  speak  at  the 
period  of  the  downfall  of  Israel  and  the  captivity 
of  her  people,  now  begin  to  tell  of  a  suffering  and 
atoning  servant,  or  Messiah,  who  shall,  through 
death  and  suffering,  lead  the  people  to  a  state  of 
happiness  and  glory,  when  peace  shall  be  as  lasting 
as  the  moon  in  the  firmament,  and  the  whole  earth 
filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord. 
Now  it  is  a  king,  and  now  a  priest,  and  again  a 
prophet  who  is  predicted. 

Together  with  these  general  and  somewhat  ob¬ 
scure  predictions  about  a  mysterious  power  and 
Person  and  blessing  of  the  dim  future,  there  is 
much  that  is  more  specific.  This  mysterious  One 
is  to  be  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  line  of  David ; 
the  place  of  his  birth  is  to  be  Bethlehem  Ephratah. 
“  Out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is 
to  be  Ruler  in  Israel.”  Not  only  the  place  but 
the  time  is  specified,  and  specified  so  clearly  that  it 
was  to  be  before  the  sceptre  finally  departed  from 


48  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

Judah,  and  while  the  Second  Temple  was  still 
standing;  His  coming  was  to  be  preceded  by  the 
advent  of  a  great  prophet  who  should  prepare  His 
way  by  the  proclamation  of  repentance  and  right¬ 
eousness  ;  He  would  work  miracles,  healing  the  sick 
and  raising  the  dead ;  although  He  was  a  king,  He 
would  ride  into  Jerusalem,  lowly,  upon  the  foal  of 
an  ass;  He  would  be  rejected  by  His  people;  He 
would  be  sold  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver;  He  would 
be  mocked  and  reviled  in  the  midst  of  His  suffer¬ 
ings;  gall  and  vinegar  would  be  given  Him  to 
drink;  His  garments  would  be  divided  by  lot;  He 
would  be  pierced;  He  would  be  buried  m  a  rich 
man’s  grave;  although  dead  He  would  not  be  left 
in  hades,  nor  would  His  body  see  corruption,  and 
through  the  diffusion  of  His  Gospel  He  would 
bring  in  everlasting  righteousness. 

No  one  who  reads  the  Old  Testament  can  doubt 
that  all  this  is  predicted  of  some  one,  and  of  some 
day  in  the  future.  The  question  is:  Who  is  it  that 
is  thus  described?  Has  He  appeared  in  the  world’s 
history  or  is  He  yet  to  come  ?  “  Art  thou  He  that 
should  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?  ”  Suppose 
that  a  man  who  had  never  heard  of  either  the  New 
Testament  or  Christ,  has  put  into  his  hands  a  copy 
of  the  New  Testament:  What  would  such  a  man 
discover?  He  would  discover  that  the  great  Per¬ 
son  of  the  New  Testament  and  His  followers  em¬ 
phatically  declare  that  this  one  Jesus  is  the  One  to 
whom  the  old  predictions  pointed,  for  they  were 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY? 


49 


fulfilled  in  Him.  No  man  reading  the  New 
Testament  could  miss  that  claim.  Then  he  begins 
to  test  the  claims  by  the  facts,  and  he  discovers  that 
Jesus  was  of  the  seed  of  a  woman,  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  house  of 
David,  that  He  was  born  while  the  Second  Temple 
was  still  standing,  that  His  birthplace  was  Bethle¬ 
hem;  that  He  did  work  miracles;  that  He  was 
despised  and  rejected  by  men;  that  He  was  both  a 
personage  of  strange  unlimited  powers,  and  yet  of 
infinite  humility  and  suffering;  that  He  rode  into 
Jerusalem  on  the  foal  of  an  ass;  that  He  was  be¬ 
trayed  and  scourged  and  mocked  and  reviled,  and 
that  He  was  pierced;  that  men  cast  lots  for  His 
garments;  that  He  was  buried  in  a  rich  man’s 
grave,  and  yet  did  not  see  corruption,  for  He  rose 
again  from  the  dead  the  third  day.  On  comparing 
the  Old  Testament  with  the  New,  he  discovers  how 
one  quadrates  with  the  other. 

His  observation  would  be :  “  This  is  a  very  strik¬ 
ing  thing,  that  so  many  conditions  and  actions  pre¬ 
dicted  centuries  before  should  be  answered  by  the 
life  and  death  of  Jesus.  If  there  were  just  one  or 
two  instances  of  a  prediction  having  a  fulfilment 
in  Jesus,  I  should  say  it  was  a  remarkable  coinci¬ 
dence;  but  when  I  discover  that  over  sixty  things 
that  are  predicted  of  this  mysterious,  unknown 
personage  in  the  Old  Testament  are  similar  to,  or 
identical  with,  incidents  in  the  history  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  then  I  hardly  know  what  to  think.”  Is 


50  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


it  possible  that  there  was  collusion  between  Jesus 
and  His  friends,  and  that  in  order  to  gain  prestige 
for  His  Gospel,  through  seeming  to  fulfil  prophecy, 
Jesus  contrived  to  make  the  incidents  of  His  life 
and  death  fit  into  the  predictions  of  the  old 
prophets?  This  is  preposterous,  for  most  of  the 
prophecies  about  Christ  were  fulfilled  in  His  life 
and  death  by  His  enemies,  who  hated  Him  because 
He  said  He  would  fulfil  prophecy  and  claimed  to 
be  the  Christ.  Is  it  possible  that  some  of  these 
predictions  were  made  after  the  event  ?  No.  The 
documents  in  which  they  occur,  by  common  con¬ 
sent,  long  antedate  Christianity.  Is  it  possible, 
then,  that  although  there  are  so  many  similarities 
between  the  historic  life  of  Jesus  and  the  things 
predicted  in  the  prophets,  the  predictions  really 
refer  to  some  other  man?  If  so,  who  is  that  other 
man?  Socrates,  Plato,  Lycurgus,  Alexander, 
Caesar  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Justinian,  Hadrian, 
Charlemagne,  Mohammed,  Luther,  Napoleon? 
Certainly  not.  In  no  person  that  can  be  named 
before  Christ,  or  since  His  death,  are  there  any 
incidents  which  fit  into  the  Old  Testament  descrip¬ 
tions  of  the  Messiah. 

We  are  thus  left  to  one  of  two  conclusions : 
either  the  prophecies  have  not  yet  been  fulfilled, 
or  Christ  fulfilled  them.  As  to  the  former,  what 
greater  and  fuller,  more  striking,  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecies  could  be  imagined  than  that  which  is 
afforded  us  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ?  Can  you 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  51 


conceive  of  any  figure  arising  in  the  future  ages 
and  giving  greater  evidence  than  Jesus  did  that  He 
is  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy?  It  is  impossible  so 
to  conceive.  Taken  by  themselves,  many  of  the 
predictions  were  inexplicable  and  apparently  con¬ 
tradictory.  How  could  He  of  whom  they  prophe¬ 
sied  be  a  mighty  conqueror,  and  at  the  same  time 
despised  and  rejected  of  men?  How  could  He  be, 
at  the  same  time,  a  priest,  a  prophet,  and  a  king? 
Yet  when  Christ  came,  men  saw  how  wonderfully 
all  the  ancient  predictions  converged  and  harmo¬ 
nized  in  Him.  If  Christ  did  not  fulfil  the  prophe¬ 
cies,  then  they  never  will  be  fulfilled,  for  no  greater 
proof  of  fulfilment  could  be  offered  than  Christ 
has  given  us. 

The  only  other  conclusion  is  that  Christ  fulfilled 
the  prophecies;  that  to  Him  all  the  prophets  bear 
witness;  that  when  Christ  began  at  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  and  said  Moses  and  the  prophets 
were  speaking  of  Him,  He  was  not  an  impostor 
or  a  deceiver,  but  the  Christ  Himself,  the  Son 
of  God. 

And  what  does  this  mean  to  us  today?  To 
those  of  us  who  already  are  Christians,  believers  in 
the  Cord  Jesus  Christ,  it  means  that  our  faith 
stands  upon  impregnable  grounds.  It  means  that 
when  we  come  to  church  to  worship,  or  when  we 
kneel  down  at  night  by  ourselves  to  pray  for  our¬ 
selves  and  for  those  whom  we  love,  or  when,  in  the 
hour  of  sorrow,  we  seek  His  comfort  and  help,  or 


52  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


when  the  heart  is  heavy  with  the  sense  of  sin  and 
guilt,  that  the  Jesus  upon  whom  we  call  is  the 
Christ,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  whose  divine 
nature  and  whose  right  to  save  and  to  heal,  to  rule 
the  hearts  of  men  and  rule  the  world  has  been 
demonstrated  and  vindicated  by  the  mightiest  evi¬ 
dence  which  could  be  presented  to  the  mind  of  man. 
Since  we  say  with  Peter:  “  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,”  therefore  we  can  repeat  his  next 
sentence,  “To  whom  shall  we  go?  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life.”  He  has  the  words  of 
eternal  life  because  He  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God. 

For  those  who  are  not  yet  believers  in  Christ, 
this  witness  of  prophecy  has  a  very  solemn  mean¬ 
ing.  It  shows  how  and  why  unbelief  is  sin,  and 
if  persisted  in,  the  unpardonable  sin.  Christ  said: 
“  He  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  condemned.” 
Christ  forgave  the  harlot  and  the  extortioner; 
Peter,  who,  with  cruel  oaths,  denied  Him,  and  the 
thief  on  the  Cross  stained  with  his  crimes;  but  He 
cannot  forgive  the  man  who  will  not  believe.  He 
has  given  us  the  greatest  reasons  why  we  should 
believe  and  has  put  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
unbelief.  Will  you  believe  in  Christ?  I  say, 
“  Will  you  ?  ”  because  it  is  an  act  of  the  will.  Will 
you  ?  Some  of  you  have  waited  long,  far  too  long. 
But  Christ,  with  the  marks  of  the  nails  in  His 
hands  and  feet,  God’s  eternal  Son,  wounded  for 
your  transgressions  and  bruised  for  your  iniqui- 


DID  CHRIST  FULFIL  PROPHECY?  53 


ties,  still  waits  to  be  gracious  unto  you.  Will  you 
believe?  To  believe  in  Christ  means  to  believe  in 
all  that  is  high  and  holy.  It  means  to  believe  in 
God,  in  love,  in  justice,  in  life  everlasting.  Will 
you  believe? 


Ill 


WAS  JESUS  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER? 

“Never  man  spake  as  this  man.” — John  7:46. 

THIS  was  the  verdict  of  the  officers  whom 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  at  Jerusalem  had 
sent  out  expressly  to  arrest  Jesus.  They 
returned  without  their  prisoner,  and  when  asked 
to  explain  their  dereliction,  answered:  “Never 
man  spake  as  this  man.”  They  could  not  lay  their 
hands  upon  such  a  man. 

A  friend  with  whom  I  was  taking  lunch  recently 
said  to  me :  “  How  do  you  account  for  the  efforts 
that  are  everywhere  being  made  to  discredit  the 
Bible,  and  overthrow  the  authority  of  the  Christian 
religion  ?  ”  The  answer  is  to  be  found  in  the  mys¬ 
tery  of  iniquity,  or  the  fact  that  the  mind  of  man 
is  alienated  from  God  by  sin,  and  one  of  the  chief 
evidences  of  the  fallen  state  of  man  is  the  effort 
which  man  makes  to  discredit  the  religion  which 
comes  to  save  him.  The  ways  of  doing  this  are 
ancient  and  innumerable,  but  the  principle  is  always 
the  same.  The  Bible  commences  with  the  declara¬ 
tion  that  “  God  said.”  But  we  have  read  only  a 
few  verses  when  we  discover  that  the  Tempter, 
speaking  to  the  man  and  the  woman,  seeks  to  dis- 

54 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  55 


credit  what  God  said  by  asking  this  question: 
“  Hath  God  said?  ”  All  forms  of  unbelief  and  re¬ 
sistance  to  the  Christian  faith  are  but  repetitions 
of  that  first  question  and  insinuation  of  the 
Tempter. 

In  recent  years  much  has  been  made  of  the  study 
of  what  is  called  Comparative  Religions.  For 
people  who  have  no  axe  to  grind  and  no  inveterate 
prejudice  against  the  truth,  such  a  study  cannot  be 
otherwise  than  helpful  and  confirmatory  of  the 
truth  of  the  Christian  revelation.  But  to  others, 
it  has  seemed  to  furnish  new  weapons  with  which 
to  assail  the  truth.  In  some  ancient  heathen  cult, 
or  religion,  or  philosophy,  men  have  come  across  a 
sentiment  which  sounds  like  one  of  the  sayings  of 
Jesus;  or  they  have  read  of  some  deed  or  incident 
in  the  lives  of  ancient  prophets,  or  teachers,  which 
is  similar  to  an  incident  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  There 
is  nothing  strange  about  that.  The  strange  thing 
is  the  conclusion  which  they  urge  us  to  draw,  the 
insinuation  which  they  throw  out,  namely,  that 
Christianity  is  not  an  original  and  separate  and 
distinct  religion,  but  some  sort  of  an  assembled 
religion,  its  precepts  and  practices  a  mosaic  or 
patchwork  of  many  other  creeds.  If  true,  this 
would,  of  course,  destroy  the  authority  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  a  final  and  authoritative  religion.  We 
could  no  longer  say  that  “  there  is  no  other  Name 
given  under  heaven,  among  men,  whereby  we  must 
be  saved.” 


56  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Truth  does  not  need  to  be  new  to  be  authori¬ 
tative,  and  even  if  all  the  precepts  of  Jesus  could 
be  paralleled  in  some  ancient  faith,  that  would  not 
make  them  any  the  less  binding  upon  man,  if  they 
are  true.  But  I  will  now  try  to  show  that  Christ 
is  not  only  a  true  teacher,  but  an  absolutely  original 
teacher,  and  that  the  verdict  of  the  Hebrew  of< 
fleers:  “  Never  man  spake  as  this  man,”  is  a  true, 
verdict.  This  I  shall  do  by  showing  that  there* 
never  was  such  a  speaker  as  Jesus,  that  is,  “  Never 
man  spake  as  this  man,”  for  the  simple  reason  that 
there  never  was  another  like  Him. 

But  before  coming  to  that  main  proposition,  let 
me  point  out  how  even  what  is  called  the  “  ethical  ” 
teaching  of  Jesus,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  for 
instance,  is  essentially  new  and  original.  Man 
everywhere  and  in  all  ages  is  a  moral  creature  and 
has  the  same  spiritual  inheritance,  however  wrecked 
by  sin  and  unenlightened  by  revelation  he  may  be. 
Sin  wrecked  man’s  nature,  but  it  did  not  destroy  it. 
Therefore,  any  truth  spoken  in  one  age  is  ap¬ 
plicable  to  man  in  every  age,  and  truth  spoken  in 
one  age  will  still  be  truth  in  every  other  age.  Man 
was  created  a  moral  being  and  sin  has  never 
stripped  him  of  his  moral  nature.  God  never  left 
Himself,  as  Paul  said  to  the  Athenians,  without  a 
witness.  How  true  that  is,  we  know  from  the 
study  of  some  of  the  heathen  religions,  for  along 
with  a  great  deal  that  is  gross,  revolting  and  false, 
we  now  and  then  come  upon  some  great  moral  idea 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  57 


that  is  common  to  all  men,  and  which  Christianity 
could  not  improve  on,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
is  truth,  unchanging  truth.  As  an  example  of  that 
take  the  case  of  the  pagans  who  lived  on  the  island 
of  Malta,  where  Paul  was  shipwrecked.  When 
they  saw  the  serpent  hanging  on  his  arm  they  con¬ 
cluded  that  he  was  a  murderer  whom,  though  he 
had  escaped  death  in  the  shipwreck,  yet  justice  suf¬ 
fered  not  to  live.  They  were  mistaken  as  to  Paul, 
but  not  mistaken  in  their  great  belief  that  wrong 
doing  will  be  punished.  When  Paul  preached  he 
could  not  deny  nor  change  that  fundamental  con¬ 
ception,  for  back  of  his  teaching  that  we  must  all 
stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God,  and  that 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  also  shall  he  reap, 
is  the  same  great  idea  of  the  barbarians  of  Malta. 
Yet,  related  to  Christ,  what  Paul  taught  was  an 
immeasurable  increase  upon  the  knowledge  of  the 
barbarians  of  the  island.  It  was  new  and  origi¬ 
nal,  for  Paul  preached  a  Christ  who  forgives  the 
sinner. 

We  are  not  to  be  frightened  or  surprised,  there¬ 
fore,  if,  in  a  saying  of  Plato,  or  Seneca,  or  So¬ 
crates,  or  Buddha,  or  an  ancient,  Hebrew  prophet, 
we  discover  a  foregleam  of  the  truth  uttered  by 
Jesus,  or  a  faint  adumbration  of  His  perfect  Law. 
We  remember  that  He  came  to  bring  life  and  im¬ 
mortality  to  light ,  and  what  Pie  said  with  regard  to 
the  Hebrew  religion  applies  to  any  portion  of  truth 
uttered  by  the  pagan  and  heathen  faiths. 


58  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


“  Children  of  men !  the  Unseen  Power  whose  eye 
Forever  doth  accompany  mankind, 

Hath  looked  on  no  religion  scornfully 

That  man  did  ever  find. 

“  Which  has  not  taught  weak  wills  how  much  they 
can  ? 

Which  has  not  fallen  on  the  dry  heart  like  rain? 
Which  has  not  cried  to  the  sunk  self-weary  man; 

‘  Thou  must  be  born  again  *  ?  ” 

All  this  we  cheerfully  grant.  Still,  even  in  this 
field  of  ethics,  Jesus  is  an  original  teacher.  There 
is  such  a  thing  as  truth  becoming  cold  and  dead. 
Jesus  made  the  dead  live  when  He  spake.  Those 
Jewish  officers  had  undoubtedly  heard  the  priests 
and  Pharisees  quote  sayings  of  the  great  Rabbi 
Hillel  or  the  older  prophets  of  Israel,  which  were 
comparable  to  the  words  they  heard  from  the  lips 
of  Jesus,  yet  their  verdict  was  true,  “  Never  man 
spake  as  this  man.” 

Take,  for  example,  Christ’s  law  of  forgiveness — 
“  Love  your  enemies.”  It  fell  upon  the  world  as 
something  absolutely  new  and  unique.  Jesus  spoke 
truly  when  He  said  to  the  disciples,  “  A  new  com¬ 
mandment  I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  an¬ 
other.”  It  matters  not  that  some  esoteric  sage, 
talking  to  his  little  group,  said  something  similar, 
or  that  some  ancient  faith  intimated  it ;  as  a  work¬ 
ing  principle  of  life  it  came  new  and  fresh  from 
Christ.  As  Sir  John  Seeley  in  his  famous  book 
Ecce  Homo  put  it,  “  This  is  Christ’s  most  striking 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  59 


innovation  in  morality.  It  has  produced  such  an 
impression  upon  mankind  that  it  is  commonly  re¬ 
garded  as  the  whole,  or  at  least  the  fundamental 
part  of  the  Christian  moral  system.  When  the 
Christian  spirit  is  spoken  of,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  a  forgiving  spirit  is  usually  meant.  ...  To 
paraphrase  the  ancient  Hebrew  language,  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  brooded  upon  the  face  of  the  waters,  and 
Christ  said,  Let  there  be  forgiveness,  and  there  was 
forgiveness.” 

Thus  Christ  was  the  first  who  made  the  world, 
as  a  world,  take  seriously  a  great  law  like  that  of 
forgiveness  and  the  love  of  all  men.  When,  then, 
I  hear  someone  scoffing  at  Christianity  because  he 
says  he  has  found  what  Jesus  said  in  the  sayings 
of  Gautama,  or  Seneca,  or  Laotze,  I  am  reminded 
of  the  story  of  that  antiquarian  who,  after  he  had 
shown  to  a  sculptor-friend  how  the  characteristic 
features  of  Greek  sculpture  had  been  anticipated 
by  the  Egyptians,  the  Assyrians  and  the  Hittites, 
exclaimed  in  triumph  that  the  Greeks  had  invented 
nothing.  To  which  his  friend  rejoined,  “  Nothing 
except  the  beautiful.”  The  others  had  art,  but  the 
Greeks  had  art  with  beauty.  Christ  made  the 
world  take  morality  seriously,  and  if  you  wish  to 
study  comparative  religions,  do  not  buy  a  book  on 
the  subject,  but  buy  a  ticket  and  travel  in  those 
lands  where  the  light  of  the  Gospel  has  not 
penetrated. 

But  now  to  our  main  proposition  that  there  never 


60  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

was  such  a  teacher  because  there  never  was  such 
a  man. 

1.  Jesus  was  an  original  teacher  because  He  was 
a  sinless  man.  Men  had  heard  about  the  truth 
before,  but  they  had  never  seen  a  sinless  man. 
Here  was  purity  and  love  incarnate.  All  those 
great  words  had  become  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
men.  In  contrast  with  other  religions  we  at  once 
relate  the  truth  of  Christianity  to  the  character  of 
the  Founder  of  it.  If,  in  the  character  of  Jesus, 
there  is  the  slightest  taint,  then  down  comes  the 
whole  Christian  system,  for  it  is  involved  with  His 
personality.  St.  Paul  said,  “  If  any  man  love  not 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  anathema  mara- 
natha.”  It  would  be  absurd  to  condemn  a  man  for 
not  loving  Gautama,  Confucius,  Plato,  but  if  Jesus 
Christ  be  sinless — perfect — then,  not  to  love  the 
truth  manifested  is  condemnation;  Jesus  Himself 
said  that  to  His  own  generation.  He  called  upon 
men  to  follow  Him,  and  the  imitation  of  Christ  is 
the  chief  meditation  and  the  chief  labor  of  the 
Christian  disciple.  Jesus  recognized  the  soundness 
of  this  test  of  His  character  as  a  witness  to  His 
teaching,  for  He  said,  “  Which  of  you  convinceth 
me  of  sin?”  “If  you  can,  then  do  not  believe 
My  words.” 

Strangers,  like  the  two  centurions,  confessed  to 
the  moral  miracle  of  Jesus,  one  saying,  “  I  am  not 
worthy  that  thou  shouldst  come  under  my  roof,” 
and  the  other  exclaiming,  “  Surely  this  was  the 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  61 


Son  of  God.”  His  most  intimate  friends  were 
under  the  same  conviction.  Peter,  who  fell  at  His 
feet  and  said,  “  Lord,  depart  from  me  for  I  am  a 
sinful  man,”  afterwards  wrote  of  Him  as  a  man, 
“  Who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his 
mouth.”  Then  we  have  the  testimony  of  men  like 
Renan,  Strauss,  and  others  who  spent  much  time 
and  exhibited  much  ingenuity  in  trying  to  break 
down  the  Christian  revelation,  yet  who  all  pay 
tribute  to  the  moral  supremacy  of  Christ.  Even 
the  charges  brought  against  Jesus  by  His  foes 
redound  to  His  credit.  He  was  charged  with  being 
a  glutton  because  He  ate  with  poor,  outcast  men. 
He  was  charged  with  breaking  the  Fourth  Com¬ 
mandment  because  He  healed  on  the  Sabbath. 
They  said  He  had  a  devil  because  He  cast  out  the 
unclean  spirits. 

However  you  take  Christ,  in  what  are  called  the 
passive  virtues — benevolence,  compassion,  humil¬ 
ity,  gentleness,  patience,  long-suffering,  or  in  what 
are  called  the  heroic  virtues,  fortitude,  daring, 
courage,  righteousness,  indignation — it  is  as  im¬ 
possible  to  think  of  any  improvement  as  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  of  any  situation  in  life 
where  He  could  not  be  your  guide.  To  compare 
Him  with  others  is  not  so  much  an  offense 
against  orthodoxy,  as  it  is  against  good  taste  and 
decency. 

“  O  what  amiss  may  I  forgive  in  thee, 

Jesus,  good  Paragon,  thou  Crystal  Christ.” 


62  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


When  such  a  man,  therefore,  talks  to  me  of 
meekness,  of  purity,  of  forgiveness,  of  compassion, 
of  reverence,  I  am  confronted  with  an  altogether 
new  and  original  combination,  for  never  before, 
nor  elsewhere,  have  I  heard  the  pure  man  talk  of 
purity,  or  the  all- forgiving  of  forgiveness,  or  the 
all-suffering  of  patience,  or  the  all-pitiful  of  com¬ 
passion.  It  is  His  personality,  and  that  alone, 
which  has  persuaded  men  to  seek  first  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  or  those  virtues  which  Jesus  commended 
to  us.  Jesus  Himself  is  our  moral  dynamic. 

2.  Because  He  identifies  Himself  with  the  truth 
which  He  teaches ,  Christ  calls  uien  to  obey  the 
commandments  as  He  spiritually  interpreted  them , 
but  still  more  does  He  call  upon  men  to  come  to 
Himself.  “  Come  unto  me,”  is  the  astounding  in¬ 
vitation  which  He  gives  to  men.  Others  have 
stood  up  before  men  and  exhorted  them  to  go  in 
this  direction  or  in  that,  or  to  receive  this  truth  or 
that  law;  but  Jesus  tells  men  to  come  to  Himself. 
“  Come  unto  me.”  The  refrain  of  the  prophets  is, 
“  Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  but  Jesus  says,  “  I  say 
unto  you.”  They  asked  men  to  take  their  message 
because  it  came  from  God.  Jesus  asked  men  to 
take  Him  because  He  came  from  God.  Others 
have  stood  at  the  crossroads  where  pant  and  pass 
the  weary  sons  of  men  on  their  pilgrimage  through 
life,  and  they  have  called  to  them,  “  Here,  this  is 
the  way,”  “  That  is  the  truth,”  “  Yonder,  you  will 
find  life.”  But  the  Galilaean  peasant  stands  at  the 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  63 


crossroads  and  cries,  “  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest.”  “  I  am  the  way,  I  am  the  truth,  I  am 
the  life.” 

The  most  striking  example  of  how  the  supreme 
truth  which  Christ  taught  was  Himself,  is  found 
in  what  He  has  to  say  about  that  problem  over 
which  the  generations  of  men  have  bent  in  their 
sorrow  and  agony — life  after  death.  Buddha 
knew  nothing  of  life  after  death;  the  annihilation 
of  the  soul  in  Nirvana  was  the  summum  bonum. 
Divine  revelation  had  not  illuminated  that  territory 
to  the  devout  Hebrew.  Plato  and  Socrates  and 
Cicero  could  speak  and  write  in  beautiful  words 
about  the  reasonableness  of  it,  and  the  desirable¬ 
ness  of  it.  But  when  Christ  came  the  world  heard 
something  that  it  had  never  heard  before.  He  did 
not  say,  “  There  is  a  resurrection,”  “  There  must 
be  a  life  after  death,”  but,  “  I  am  the  resurrection 
and  the  life.  He  that  believeth  in  me  shall  never 
die !  ”  All  that  we  as  Christians  believe  and  hope 
for  in  the  life  to  come  is  grounded  upon  the  Person 
of  Christ,  that  Person  which  could  not  see  corrup¬ 
tion,  but  was  raised  again  from  the  dead,  “  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  by  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  from  the  dead.” 

Thus  the  whole  teaching  of  Jesus  is  identified 
with  His  Person.  Can  you  think  of  Socrates 
taking  the  cup  of  hemlock  and  saying,  “  This  cup 
is  my  blood  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remis- 


64  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


sion  of  sins  ”  ?  Can  you  think  of  any  of  the  dis¬ 
ciples  of  Plato  saying,  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus  said 
of  Him,  “  I  am  crucified  with  Plato,  nevertheless  I 
live,  yet  not  I,  but  Plato  liveth  in  me  ”  ?  The 
question  is  so  absurd,  so  grotesque,  that  it  makes 
us  aware  of  the  gulf  which  yawns  between  Christ 
and  all  others.  And  that  new  life,  which,  we  are 
told,  comes  to  the  converted  and  reborn  man,  is  not 
any  principle  of  his  own  life,  or  any  lav/  which, 
adopted  and  obeyed,  will  carry  him  through  to  the 
goal  of  life,  but  Christ  in  him,  the  hope  of  glory. 
The  whole  meaning  of  the  truth  and  the  blessings 
of  Christianity  is  realized  for  us,  and  summed  up 
for  us  in  Christ,  and  in  our  union  with  Him  by 
faith.  “  For  me,  to  live  is  Christ.” 

3.  The  forgiveness  of  sin  through  His  death  is 
the  grand ,  central unique ,  and  powerful  thing  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Men  have  complained  that, 
if  redemption  by  the  Cross  held  the  place  in  His 
mind  which  it  has  held  in  the  mind  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church,  He  ought  to  have  said  more  about  it, 
and  less  about  the  sins  of  the  Pharisees  and  the 
virtues  of  the  meek  and  lowly.  It  is  true  that  the 
full  declaration  and  explanation  of  the  sacrificial 
death  and  atoning  blood  of  Christ  comes  after  His 
death  and  from  the  lips  of  the  apostles.  But  that 
is  exactly  what  He  provided  for.  He  had  to  live 
and  die  before  there  was  a  Gospel  to  preach. 
When  He  had  died  for  our  sins  on  the  Cross,  and 
had  risen  from  the  dead,  then  He  sent  the  disciples 


WAS  CHRIST  AN  ORIGINAL  TEACHER?  65 


forth  to  preach  the  Gospel  unto  every  creature. 
What  is  that  Gospel?  We  know  what  the  disciples 
who  received  the  charge  and  commission  took 
Jesus  to  mean.  To  them  the  Gospel  meant  the 
proclamation  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  through 
faith  in  the  Crucified  Son  of  God.  That  was  what 
they  preached.  That  was  what  established  the 
Church  in  the  world.  That  is  what  kept  the 
Church  in  the  world.  That,  and  that  alone,  will 
keep  the  Church  in  the  world,  Christ  uplifted  on 
the  Cross,  Christ  bruised  for  our  iniquities  and 
wounded  for  our  transgressions. 

Where  else  will  you  find  such  a  teacher?  Where 
a  teacher  who  makes  such  claims,  who  identifies 
himself  with  truth,  who  asks  you  to  believe  what 
He  says  for  the  tremendous  reason,  “  I  am  God  ”  ? 
Is  it  a  word  of  pity  that  you  want  to  hear?  Who 
will  speak  it  so  tenderly?  Is  it  a  word  of  hope 
that  your  sinking  heart  would  like  to  hear?  Who 
will  speak  with  such  conviction?  Is  it  a  word  of 
comfort  that  you  wish  to  hear?  Who  will  speak 
so  softly?  Is  it  light  that  you  want,  rest  that  your 
soul  craves,  love  that  you  covet  and  desire  ?  Then 
where  will  you  go  but  unto  Christ?  Is  it  the  for¬ 
giveness  of  sin  that  your  heart  longs  after,  the 
blessed  words  of  remission,  the  burden  lifted,  the 
stain  washed  out?  Then  where  can  you  go  but 
unto  Christ?  Lord,  Lord,  Lord,  forsaken,  for¬ 
gotten,  sinned  against,  neglected,  scorned,  cruci¬ 
fied  afresh  by  us  all,  O  patient,  divine  Christ,  O 


66  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

Son  of  Man,  O  Son  of  God,  to  whom  shall  we  go 
but  unto  Thee?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life! 


IV 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 

“Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  unto 
you  by  miracles.” — Acts  2 :  22. 

THE  two  great  pillars  which  support  the 
temple  of  Christian  truth  and  show  it  to 
be  a  revelation  from  God  to  man  are  the 
prophecies  and  the  miracles.  We  have  already 
spoken  of  the  prophecies,  which  are  in  reality 
miracles  of  utterance.  Now  we  come  to  those 
miracles  of  action  which,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  were  performed  by  Jesus  Christ.  We 
hear  much,  today,  about  the  modern  spirit  of  un¬ 
belief.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  unbelief,  but 
there  is  nothing  modern  about  it.  It  is  as  old  as 
the  mind  of  man.  But  there  is  perhaps  more  dog¬ 
matic  denial  of  Christianity  than  there  has  been 
for  many  a  day,  and  the  most  popular  ground  of 
the  denial  is  what  is  called  the  scientific  ground. 
The  creed  of  this  denial  of  Christ  amounts  to  this : 
“  Receive  nothing  you  cannot  demonstrate,  and 
believe  nothing  you  cannot  see.”  Such  a  creed  is 
neither  scientific  nor  religious.  It  is  but  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  the  pride  of  man’s  mind,  the  sin  that 
made  the  angels  fall,  and  which  still  keeps  men 
from  accepting  the  dominion  of  Jesus  Christ. 

67 


68  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


It  is  because  of  the  spread  of  physical  science 
that  not  a  few  within  the  Christian  Church  have 
been  tempted  to  deal  lightly  with  the  supernatural 
and  miraculous  element  in  the  Christian  revelation. 
Because  physical  science  knows  nothing  of  mir¬ 
acles,  a  great  many  Christians  are  almost  afraid 
to  say  that  their  souls  are  their  own,  and  they  act 
as  if  they  secretly  wished  that  their  New  Testa¬ 
ment  did  not  have  all  these  accounts  of  the  prodi¬ 
gies  which  were  done  by  Christ.  Thus  it  has  come 
about,  that  what  God  gave  to  men  as  one  of  the 
two  great  evidences  of  the  truth  of  the  divinity 
and  authority  of  Christ  is  mentioned  almost  with 
an  apology  by  not  a  few  writers  and  speakers  in 
the  Church.  What  the  Saviour  Himself  and  His 
apostles  pointed  to  as  a  proof  and  confirmation  of 
Christian  truth  men  today  regard  as  sort  of  a 
stumbiingblock,  an  embarrassing  addendum  of 
Christianity,  excess  baggage,  as  it  were,  which  they 
would  like  to  be  rid  of.  This  is  one  of  the  many 
ways  in  which  the  Church,  in  order  to  gain  favour 
with  men  and  win  their  support,  has  come  peril¬ 
ously  near  to  a  compromise  with  the  world  itself. 
No  greater  tragedy  could  befall  the  Christian 
Church  than  to  have  men  think  that  Christians 
were  ready  to  throw  away  any  portion  of  the 
divine  revelation,  for  the  sake  of  gaining  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  mind  of  the  age. 

The  quiet  disregard,  or  the  implied  denial  of, 
certain  great  facts  of  the  life  of  Christ  as  we  have 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


69 


that  life  in  the  Bible,  every  masculine  mind  must 
recognize  to  be,  intellectually,  absolute  inconsist¬ 
ency.  Christianity  cannot  be  ethically  divine  and 
historically  false.  The  man  who  is  preaching  the 
so-called  ideals  of  the  Christian  faith  and  at  the 
same  time  ignoring,  or  evading,  or  denying  its 
facts,  is  indulging  in  a  sort  of  theological  leger¬ 
demain,  which,  if  followed  and  adopted  by  others, 
could  have  no  other  result  but  complete  denial  of 
Christianity,  ideals,  facts,  hopes,  and  all.  We  want 
no  soft,  mossy  bed  of  sentiment  upon  which  to  lie. 
We  prefer  the  hard  rock  of  fact,  even  though  the 
facts  cut  and  wound  our  pilgrim  feet.  Did  Christ 
work  these  miracles  attributed  to  Him  in  the  Gos¬ 
pels?  We  know  that  the  miracles  are  inextricably 
involved  with  the  other  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus, 
and  that  there  is  no  Christ  but  the  Christ  who 
walked  on  the  sea,  and  raised  the  dead,  and  made 
blind  men  to  see.  Men  who  talk  about  any  other 
Christ  are  talking  of  a  myth,  a  shadow,  a  vapour, 
for  there  can  no  more  be  a  non-miraculous,  non¬ 
supernatural  Christianity  than  there  can  be  a 
quadrangular  circle. 

The  question  which  we  face,  then,  the  issue  with 
which  we  are  dealing,  is  a  very  great  one — did 
Christ  work  miracles?  This  means  not  merely, 
did  He  feed  five  thousand  men  with  five  loaves  and 
two  fishes,  or  did  He  raise  the  widow  of  Nain’s 
son  from  the  dead,  or  did  He  heal  the  paralytic  at 
the  Pool  of  Betliesda,  but  something  far  greater, 


70  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


namely,  was  there  any  such  person  as  Christ  at 
all?  Has  the  world  a  divine  Redeemer  in  whom 
it  can  trust?  In  answering  our  question,  Did 
Christ  work  miracles?  we  shall  speak  first  of  the 
fact  of  the  miracles,  and  second  of  their  meaning 
and  purpose. 

I.  THE  FACT  OE  the  MIRACLES 

We  need  waste  no  time  in  defining  what  a  mir¬ 
acle  is.  I  mean  any  of  those  prodigies  which  the 
Gospels  say  were  done  by  Jesus,  and  which  we 
know  we  cannot  do  ourselves  and  which  could  be 
done  by  no  one  of  whom  we  have  heard.  Here  is 
a  short  and  adequate  definition :  “  A  miracle  is  an 
event  occurring  in  the  natural  world,  observed  by 
the  senses,  produced  by  divine  power,  without  any 
adequate  human  or  natural  cause,  the  purpose  of 
which  is  to  reveal  the  will  of  God  and  do  good  to 
man.”  That  will  describe  any  of  the  events  in  the 
Gospels  which  are  commonly  spoken  of  as  miracles. 

1.  Miracles  are  antecedently  possible.  Dismiss, 
for  a  moment,  the  question  about  the  historicity 
of  the  miracles  related  in  the  Gospels.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  such  a  thing  as  a  miracle  is  a 
reasonable  possibility,  whether  we  ever  saw  one, 
or  believed  that  other  men  had  seen  one,  or  not. 
Man  knows  what  happens  in  his  experience.  In¬ 
deed,  all  so-called  knowledge  is  but  observation 
upon  a  series  of  facts  that  have  fallen  within  our 
observation.  We  cannot  be  dogmatic  about  what 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


71 


may  have  happened,  or  what  can  happen,  beyond 
our  field  of  observation.  The  Zulu  chief  would 
not  believe  it  when  his  men  told  him  that  they  had 
come  back  from  England  in  an  iron  ship.  Who 
ever  heard  of  iron  floating  in  the  water?  If,  fifty 
years  ago,  a  minister  standing  in  a  pulpit  had  made 
the  prediction  that  within  half  a  century  one  of  his 
successors  would  stand  in  the  same  pulpit  and 
preach,  not  only  to  the  people  gathered  together  in 
the  church,  but  at  the  same  time  to  people  in  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  New  York,  and  even  as  far 
away  as  New  Hampshire  and  Wisconsin,  that 
those  people  far  off  could  hear  the  congregation 
sing  the  hymns, — if  he  had  said  that,  had  pre¬ 
dicted  such  a  thing,  his  people  would  have  thought 
him  a  fit  candidate  for  a  madhouse.  Yet  that  very 
thing,  by  means  of  the  Radio,  many  preachers  are 
doing  any  Sunday  night.  Now  the  thing  has  come 
within  the  range  of  our  observation,  and  we  no 
longer  marvel  at  it,  even  though  we  know  very 
little  how  it  is  done.  So  we  have  to  be  careful 
about  saying  what  can,  or  can  not  come  to  pass. 

It  is  objected  that  a  miracle  is  a  violation  of  law, 
or  God  as  He  reveals  Himself  in  nature.  God,  it 
is  said,  would  contradict  Himself  if  He  did  any¬ 
thing  in  another  way.  But  this  implies  that  we 
know  all  about  God  and  His  ways.  Instead  of  that 
being  so,  how  small  a  portion  we  have  seen !  The 
general  uniformity  of  nature  to  which  deniers  of 
the  miracles  appeal  is  a  blessing  to  man.  It  would 


72  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


be  a  terrible  world  in  which  to  live  if  we  could  not 
count  on  the  laws  of  gravity,  of  heat  and  cold,  of 
summer  and  winter,  seedtime  and  harvest.  But 
this  uniformity  is  consistent  with  voluntary  control, 
and  therefore  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  as 
the  Bible  tells  us  it  has  been,  could  be  interrupted. 
When  we  speak  of  the  uniform  type  of  nature  all 
we  mean  is  that  an  effect  is  something  produced  by 
a  cause,  and  that  all  the  effects  we  see  are  produced 
by  natural  causes.  But  we  have  no  right  to  con¬ 
clude  that  therefore  a  miracle  is  impossible,  for 
belief  in  miracles  does  not  imply  that  an  effect 
took  place  with  no  adequate  cause,  but  that  an  effect 
was  produced  by  the  immediate  act  or  will  of  God, 
who  ordinarily  works  through  second  causes,  but 
sometimes,  if  the  Bible  be  true,  through  an  im¬ 
mediate  act.  Instead  of  being  a  denial  of  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect,  a  miracle  is  its  highest 
illustration. 

A  God  who  made  a  world  and  then  shut  Himself 
out  from  it  so  that  He  could  never  enter  it  again, 
never  arrest,  regulate,  add  to  its  laws  of  working, 
would  be  no  God  at  all.  He  would  be  like  a  man 
who  made  a  machine  with  whose  laws  of  operation 
he  could  never  interfere.  What  we  call  interfer¬ 
ence,  arresting  or  changing  of  laws,  may  not  really 
be  such  at  all,  but  part  of  the  great  plan  of  God. 
To  man  it  is  a  miracle,  but  not  to  God.  If  a  count¬ 
ing  machine  produced,  for  millions  of  years,  square 
numbers,  and  then,  one  day,  produced  a  cube,  it 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


73 


would  be  a  miracle  to  the  men  who  for  generations 
had  been  using  that  machine,  but  not  to  the  man 
who  invented  and  so  designed  it  that  after  so  many 
square  numbers  had  been  produced  it  should  bring 
forth  a  cube.  Archbishop  Trench  tells  how,  in 
1690,  an  agave  plant  was  brought  over  and  planted 
in  the  gardens  of  Hampton  Court  Palace  by  Queen 
Mary.  The  last  ten  years  of  the  seventeenth  cen¬ 
tury  passed,  and  the  plant  gave  no  sign  of  flower¬ 
ing.  The  whole  of  the  eighteenth  century  passed, 
and  never  a  bud  did  the  plant  put  forth.  Eighty- 
eight  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  passed,  and 
still  no  sign  of  a  flower.  But  in  1889,  the  venerable 
plant  burst  into  blossom.  Several  generations  of 
men  might  have  watched  that  plant  and  written 
learned  books  about  it  and  said  it  was  not  of  the 
flowering  species,  and  that  it  could  never  blossom. 
“  And  yet  they  would  have  been  wrong.  The  blos¬ 
soming  potency  was  there,  latent,  slumbering,  deep- 
hidden  in  its  core.  It  was  no  miracle,  but  a  long 
delayed  fulfilment  of  the  law  of  its  being,  when  it 
burst  into  blossom.”  The  great  miracle  is  God 
Himself.  If  you  grant  that,  then  all  is  possible. 

“  Admit  a  God — that  mystery  supreme ! 

That  cause  uncaused !  All  other  wonders  cease : 

Nothing  is  marvelous  for  Him  to  do; 

Deny  Him — all  is  mystery  besides.” 

2.  A  miracle  is  antecedently  probable.  We  have 
seen  that  if  there  is  a  God,  there  is  a  possibility  of 
a  miracle,  if  there  should  be  need  of  one.  We  shall 


7 4>  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


now  see  how  a  miracle  is  not  only  possible,  but 
probable.  The  greatest  question  that  we  can  ask  is. 
Has  God  given  a  revelation  of  His  will  to  man? 
God  has  created  man  with  an  ineradicable  religious 
nature,  a  moral  nature,  which  even  in  its  perverted 
and  degenerate  forms,  bears  witness  to  the  grandeur 
and  reality  of  the  instinct  itself.  For  God  to  make 
such  a  being  and  then  never  reveal  Himself,  never 
speak  to  that  religious  nature,  would  be  like  making 
the  eye  without  light  and  the  ear  without  sound. 
Still  more  would  it  be  godlike  in  God  to  reveal 
Himself  if  this  creation  of  His  has  gone  astray 
and  fallen  a  victim  to  its  passions  and  its  fears. 
Without  a  revelation,  without  a  word  from  God, 
man  has  done  nothing  to  clear  away  his  darkness 
or  break  the  chains  of  his  slavery.  If  anywhere 
humanity  has  made  progress,  it  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  God  has  never  abandoned  the  race,  has  never 
left  Himself  without  a  witness.  Surely  man  needs 
a  revelation.  Has  God  revealed  Himself?  The 
destiny  of  a  race  hangs  upon  that  question. 

If,  then,  it  is  probable  that  a  wise  and  beneficent 
God  would  reveal  Himself,  it  is  equally  probable 
that  there  should  be  a  miracle.  How  else  could 
God  authenticate  a  revelation?  How,  save  by  a 
miracle,  would  man  in  his  fallen  estate  know  that 
God  had  spoken  to  him?  If  by  some  great  sign 
and  wonder  God  had  not  said  from  age  to  age, 
“  Lo,  I  am  here!  ”  how  would  man  know  that  God 
was  here,  that  God  had  spoken?  It  is  the  miracle, 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


75 


the  departure  from  the  observed  uniformity  of 
nature,  that  arrests  the  attention  of  man  and  makes 
him  realise  that  a  higher  Person  and  a  higher 
Power  is  at  work.  If  that  uniformity  had  never 
been  broken,  man  would  ever  have  been  an  atheist, 
he  could  never  have  known  that  God  had  spoken. 
But  when  the  bush  burns  and  is  not  consumed, 
when  the  ground  is  wet,  but  the  fleece  dry,  or  the 
fleece  wet  and  the  ground  dry,  or  when  the  waves 
of  the  Red  Sea  are  rolled  back,  or  when,  in  a  night, 
the  Assyrian  host  is  destroyed  by  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  when  eyes  of  the  blind  are  opened,  withered 
arms  restored  to  energy,  and  bent  backs  straight¬ 
ened,  and  the  dead  raised  out  of  the  grave,  then 
men  know  that  God  is  at  work.  The  miracle  is  the 
majestic  seal  which  God  has  affixed  to  the  revela¬ 
tion  which  He  has  given  us.  As  Nicodemus  said 
to  Jesus,  “  No  man  can  do  the  works  which  thou 
doest,  except  God  be  with  him.” 

3.  Miracles  are  provable;  they  took  place.  We 
have  seen  that  miracles  are  antecedently  possible 
and  that  they  are  antecedently  probable.  Now  we 
shall  see  that  they  actually  took  place.  “  This  be¬ 
ginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,” 
says  John  after  the  account  of  turning  the  water 
into  wine,  “and  manifested  forth  his  glory.”  It 
was  the  “  beginning  ”  of  miracles.  In  other  words, 
Jesus  from  the  commencement  to  the  end  of  His 
public  ministry  wrought  many  miracles.  Chris¬ 
tianity  claims  to  be  a  revelation  from  God  con- 


76  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


firmed  and  vindicated  by  mighty  signs  and  worn 
ders.  The  Gospels  contain  the  records  of  thirty- 
three  miracles  and  tell  us  that  there  were  many 
others  which  they  do  not  record.  Try  to  take 
those  stories  out  of  the  Four  Gospels,  and  how 
much  of  a  Christ  have  you  left?  The  miracles  are 
as  a  strand  woven  into  the  fabric  of  the  garment 
of  Christ’s  personality,  and  you  cannot  tear  them 
out  without  destroying  the  fabric  itself.  The  poor, 
minor,  damaged  Christ  which  some  men  try  to  hold 
up  after  they  have  got  rid  of  the  miraculous  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  is  not  a  Christ  that  the  world  has 
taken,  or  will  take,  seriously.  The  only  Christ  that 
we  know  is  the  Christ  who  walked  on  the  sea, 
raised  the  dead,  and  called  the  dead  out  of  their 
charnel-house.  If  these  are  not  facts,  then  the  fact 
of  Christ  is  gone.  But  what  is  the  evidence  for 
the  facts? 

All  that  evidence  is  contained  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  evidence  or  the  nature  of  the  events  wit¬ 
nessed  to.  Hume,  in  his  celebrated  essay  on  the 
miracles,  took  the  stand  that  miracles  were  so  far 
beyond  our  ordinary  experience  that  when  we  come 
Upon  an  account  of  them  we  must  take  the  view 
that  falsehood  and  self-deception  are  always  more 
probable  than  that  the  miracles  actually  took  place. 
But  when  we  come  to  the  witness  of  the  New 
Testament  we  are  confronted  by  the  difficulty  of 
believing  that  the  men  who  relate  the  miracles  are 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


77 


either  deceivers  or  deceived.  No  one  can  read  these 
accounts  without  being  impressed  with  the  humil¬ 
ity,  sincerity,  and  deep  piety  of  the  men  who  tell 
them  or  write  them.  If  they  were  conscienceless 
fabricators,  how  was  it  that  such  men  produced 
that  picture  of  moral  excellence  before  which  all 
the  ages  have  fallen  down  in  reverent  admiration? 
How  could  men  who  lied  about  the  facts  of  Christ’s 
life  have  produced  so  marvelous  a  character?  Of 
this,  at  least,  we  may  be  sure,  the  men  who  relate 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  were  not  conscious  deceivers 
and  liars. 

But  could  they  have  been  mistaken?  Was  their 
eye  filmed  with  enthusiasm  when  they  wrote,  so 
that  they  imagined  events  which  never  took  place? 
Or  when  they  saw  these  events,  were  they  only 
natural  happenings,  which  they  in  their  love  and 
zeal  magnified  into  the  miraculous?  Was  it  an 
optical  delusion  which  made  the  disciples  think  that 
Jesus  was  walking  on  the  sea,  when  He  was  only 
walking  on  the  shore  near  which  the  ship  was 
tossing?  Was  the  widow  of  Nain’s  son  only  ap¬ 
parently  dead?  But  these  men  were  not  credulous, 
moon-struck  fools ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were 
hard-headed,  practical  men  whom  Jesus  in  the 
resurrection  had  to  rebuke  for  their  unwillingness 
to  believe  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Then, 
the  miraculous  events  to  which  they  bear  witness 
were  not  the  kind  which  men  readily  imagine  to 
have  taken  place.  No  one,  by  the  most  exalted 


78  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


imagination  or  enthusiastic  ecstacy,  would  think 
that  a  man  had  fed  a  multitude  of  five  thousand 
with  five  loaves  and  two  small  fishes.  No  one 
would  imagine  that  a  man,  three  days  in  the  grave, 
had  risen.  Not  only  were  the  events  of  such  a 
nature  that  they  could  not  have  been  imagined  to 
have  taken  place  by  some  enthusiast,  but  they  are 
of  the  kind  which  admit  of  easy  verification.  The 
enemies  of  Christ,  for  instance,  resorted  to  every 
known  expedient  to  overthrow  the  witness  of  the 
man  born  blind  that  Jesus  had  healed  him.  But 
he  proved  beyond  all  doubt  that  he  was  the  man 
born  blind,  and  that  Jesus  had  opened  his  eyes. 
Tried  by  every  test,  the  evidence  for  the  miracles 
stands.  Falsehood  or  deception  in  the  records  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  as  written  by  men  of  such  sincer¬ 
ity,  and  sobriety,  and  common  sense,  and  honesty, 
would  constitute  a  greater  miracle  than  all  the 
miracles  put  together. 

But  the  chief  witness  to  the  miracles  is  Jesus 
Himself.  We  require  no  better  witness  than 
Matthew,  and  John,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  to  con¬ 
vince  us  of  the  historicity  of  the  miracles.  But 
God  in  His  grace  has  given  us  a  far  greater  wit¬ 
ness.  That  witness  is  Christ  Himself.  In  his  book 
on  My  Belief ,  Dr.  Robert  F.  Horton,  speaking  of 
the  miracles,  says,  “  No  wise  apologist  aware  of 
the  nature  of  evidence  and  of  the  evidence  of 
Christianity,  would  identify  the  faith  in  Jesus  with 
belief  in  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels.” 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


79 


He  goes  on  to  say  that  in  the  future  there  will  be 
many  who  will  not  accept  the  miracles  of  the  Gos¬ 
pels,  but  will  still  believe  in  Christ.  But  we  re¬ 
member  that  Christ  Himself  in  the  most  solemn 
way  declared  that  He  worked  miracles.  When 
John  sent  from  the  dungeon  in  his  doubt  and  said 
to  Jesus,  “  Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  look 
we  for  another?”  Jesus  said  to  his  messengers, 
“  Go  and  tell  John  the  things  which  ye  see  and 
hear:  the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk, 
the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and  the 
dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel 
preached  unto  them.”  You  tell  me  you  do  not 
believe  that  Jesus  walked  on  the  sea,  or  opened  the 
eyes  of  the  blind,  or  made  the  deaf  hear,  or  the 
dumb  speak;  all  that  you  rule  out.  But  you  say 
you  do  take  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  But  do  you 
take  this  teaching?  Do  you  accept  Jesus  when  He 
Himself  says  that  He  made  the  blind  see  and  raised 
the  dead?  On  two  different  occasions  Jesus  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  miracle  He  had  worked  in  feeding 
the  multitude  in  the  wilderness  with  the  five  loaves 
and  the  two  small  fishes.  Just  as  the  only  Jesus 
we  know  is  the  Jesus  who  worked  miracles,  so  the 
only  Jesus  we  know  is  the  Jesus  who  claimed  that 
He  worked  miracles,  testified  in  the  most  deliberate 
way  that  He  did.  But  what  sort  of  a  man  was  this 
Jesus  whom  people,  today,  say  they  will  take  and 
worship,  minus  His  miracles?  They  all  agree  that 
He  was  a  perfect  character.  But  how  was  He  a 


80  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


perfect  character  if  He  did  not  work  miracles,  yet 
testified  that  He  did?  The  holiest  character  that 
has  appeared  on  the  horizon  of  human  thought, 
the  kindest,  truest,  best,  the  One  from  whose  brow 
truth  flashed  as  the  rays  of  light  pour  from  the 
orient  sun,  bears  witness  that  He  worked  miracles 
and  did  many  mighty  wonders.  Which  shall  we 
accent,  the  witness  of  men  who  devise  clever 
hypotheses  to  do  away  with  the  supernatural  in 
Christianity,  or  the  witness  of  Christ? 

II.  THE  MEANING  OE  THE  MIRACGES 

1.  The  miracles  witnessed  to  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  God  and  thus  served  to  authenticate  the  Chris¬ 
tian  revelation  as  from  God.  In  other  words,  the 
miracles  tell  us,  as  they  were  designed  to  tell  us, 
that  Christianity  is  true.  It  is  a  great  thing  for 
any  man  to  claim  that  he  fulfills  all  prophecy:  it  is 
a  great  thing  for  a  man  to  claim  the  absolute  love 
and  allegiance  of  men ;  it  is  a  great  thing  for  a  man 
to  claim  that  his  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  king¬ 
dom  and  that  after  heaven  and  earth  shall  have 
passed  away  his  words  shall  still  stand ;  it  is  a  great 
thing  for  a  man  to  say  that  he  is  God,  and  that  by 
virtue  of  his  sacrificial  death  men’s  sins  shall  be 
forgiven.  The  man  who  makes  such  claims  must 
come  into  court  with  extraordinary  evidence  and 
witness.  Christ  is  accompanied  by  such  evidence — 
the  miracles :  “  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved 
of  God  unto  you  by  miracles.” 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


81 


Nothing  could  be  more  certain  than  that  the 
miracles  attest  the  divine  nature  and  the  redemptive 
authority  of  Jesus.  We  have  adverted  to  what  He 
said  to  John.  John  the  Baptist  wanted  to  know  if 
Jesus  was  He  that  should  come,  that  is,  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of 
the  world.  Christ  said  that  He  was,  and  in  proof 
of  the  claim,  told  John  of  the  miracles  He  had 
worked.  He  said  that  because  He  was  able  to  cast 
out  devils  the  power  of  God  had  come  upon  men. 
By  His  miracles,  says  John,  Christ  manifested 
forth  His  glory.  Nicodemus,  on  the  ground  of 
His  miracles,  concluded  that  Jesus  was  a  teacher 
come  from  God.  Peter  says  in  the  words  of  our 
text,  that  Christ  was  approved  a  man  of  God 
among  the  people  of  Jerusalem  by  miracles  and 
wonders  and  signs.  After  Jesus  had  forgiven  a 
man  his  sins  and  His  audience  were  aghast  and 
outraged  at  such  a  fearful  claim  on  His  part,  Jesus 
then  proceeded  to  make  the  paralysed  man  walk, 
and  said,  as  He  did  so,  that  it  was  a  sign  of  His 
right  and  His  power  to  forgive  sin :  “  But  that  ye 
may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sin,  I  say  unto  thee,  Rise,  take  up 
thy  bed  and  walk !  ”  It  was  the  miracles  that  made 
the  disciples  believe  in  Jesus,  and  they,  in  turn, 
made  the  world  believe  in  Christ. 

2.  The  miracles  illustrate  and  explain  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus .  That  which  proves  Christ  also  ex¬ 
plains  Him.  More  sermons  are  preached  on  the 


82  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


miracles  of  Jesus  than  on  His  parables,  for  the 
miracles  help  to  explain  the  parables.  Take  out 
from  the  sacred  narratives  the  miracles  of  Jesus, 
and  the  tender  pathos,  the  sweet  beauty  of  the 
Gospels  is  gone.  It  is  one  thing  to  hear  Jesus 
talk;  it  is  another  thing  to  see  Him  in  action.  In 
the  miracles,  we  see  Christ  dealing  tenderly  and  yet 
majestically  with  our  human  lives  and  their  sins 
and  burdens  and  sorrows  and  fears.  We  see  Him 
walk  on  the  sea  at  the  fourth  hour  of  the  night,  and 
we  know  that  in  the  storms  of  pain  and  grief,  when 
all  our  life’s  sea  is  convulsed  with  a  tempest,  Christ 
is  with  us.  We  hear  His  voice  as  the  storm-tossed 
disciples  did,  and  immediately  we  know  that  love 
is  near  us  and  about  us.  We  see  Him  cast  out  the 
demons,  and  we  know  that  in  proportion  as  we  live 
with  Him,  the  unclean  spirits  leave  us.  We  see 
Him  take  pity  on  the  paralytic,  and  we  know  that 
no  life  is  so  poor,  weak,  discounted  by  the  world 
but  Christ  loves  it.  We  see  Him  open  the  eyes  of 
Bartimseus  and  we  learn  how  faith,  faith  that 
clings  to  Christ  and  will  not  let  Him  go,  shall  have 
its  own.  We  see  Him  stop  the  funeral  procession 
on  the  road  to  the  cemetery  at  Nain,  and  raise  the 
widow’s  son,  and  we  know  that  in  our  deepest  and 
darkest  sorrow,  when  the  cloud  hangs  so  thick 
about  us  that  we  know  not  which  way  to  turn  and 
our  eyes  through  their  tears  can  see  no  path,  Jesus 
is  present  to  sympathise  with  us  and  tell  of  His 
covenant  love.  We  see  Him  raise  Lazarus  from 


DID  CHRIST  WORK  MIRACLES? 


83 


the  dead  and  say,  “  He  that  believeth  in  me  shall 
never  die,  and  though  he  were  dead  yet  shall  he 
live,”  and  we  are  able  to  believe  that  the  grave  is 
not  our  end,  and  that  in  Christ  we  shall  live 
forever. 


V 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 

“  The  Son  of  God who  loved  me  and  gave  himself 
for  me.” — Gal.  2 :  20. 

ALL  of  Christianity,  the  length  and  the 
breadth  and  the  depth  and  the  height  of  the 
redeeming  love  of  God,  is  gathered  together 
in  that  one  sentence  of  St.  Paul,  as  the  whole  glory 
of  the  sun  is  mirrored  in  a  drop  of  dew.  “  The  Son 
of  God  who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me.” 
The  two  great  needs  of  our  fallen  and  lost  human¬ 
ity  are  love  and  forgiveness.  Man  needs  tender¬ 
ness  and  pity,  but  he  also  needs  cleansing  from  sin. 
The  heart  of  mankind  yearns  for  love,  yet  the 
world  cannot  give  it  what  it  desires.  History, 
nature,  what  we  call  civilisation,  they  know  nothing 
of  One  who  loves  us  and  who  gave  Himself  for 
us.  There  is  nothing  there  to  tell  us  that  God  is 
love,  or  that  He  has  a  Son  who  has  died  for  us. 
All  that  we  see  there  is  a  hell  of  passion,  and  strife, 
and  cruelty,  and  tears,  and  blood.  “  Tears  and 
blood  drops  have  been  innumerable,  and  the  shor’es 
of  eternity  have  been  beaten  on  incessantly  by  the 
waves  of  sorrow  and  trouble  that  have  rolled  in 
from  this  world.”  But  here  is  a  man,  and  with 


84 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


85 


him  millions  of  others  who  have  passed  through 
the  fires  and  wilderness  of  life,  who  says,  “  The 
life  that  I  now  live,  I  live  in  faith,  the  faith  which 
is  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave  him¬ 
self  for  me.”  Our  faith  as  Christian  men  rests 
upon  these  three  facts,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God's 
Son,  that  He  loved  us,  that  He  died  for  us.  If 
this  be  true,  then  all  our  needs  are  met.  Sin,  pain, 
sorrow,  death,  separation,  agony,  death,  can  never 
be  the  same.  The  whole  universe  of  life  is 
changed.  In  Browning's  Death  in  the  Desert , 
where  he  imagines  the  death  and  the  last  words  of 
St.  John,  the  Evangelist  says, 

“  I  say,  the  acknowledgment  of  God  in  Christ, 

Accepted  by  thy  reason,  solves  for  thee 

All  questions  in  the  earth  and  out  of  it.” 

Yes,  if  God  was  in  Christ,  and  if  He  loved  me 
and  gave  Himself  for  me,  then  all  problems  are 
solved  and  all  wants  are  satisfied. 

“  Thou,  O  Christ,  art  all  I  need. 

More  than  all  in  Thee  I  find.” 

23ut  if  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God,  who  died 
for  us,  then  chaos  is  come  again. 

“  The  pillar’d  firmament  is  rottenness, 

And  earth’s  firm  base  is  built  on  stubble.” 

As  I  have  reviewed  once  more  the  evidence  in 
the  Scriptures  which  proves  to  us  that  Jesus  was 


86  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  Son  of  God  and  that  God  was  in  Christ  recon¬ 
ciling  the  world  to  Himself,  the  thought  has  come 
again  into  my  mind,  How  could  any  person  who 
pretended  to  get  his  knowledge  of  Jesus  from  the 
Bible — the  only  place  where  we  have  any  informa¬ 
tion  about  Him — think  that  Jesus  was  only  a  man? 
Still  more,  how  could  any  church  have  arisen 
which  took  as  its  foundation  the  non-deity  of  Jesus 
Christ?  What  will  they  do  with  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  ?  By  what  strange  process  is  it  that  they  rule 
out  the  Son  of  God  and  leave  us  only  Jesus  of 
Nazareth?  The  only  way  I  know  of,  is  the  way 
Thomas  Jefferson  did  it;  he  just  took  his  pen  and 
ran  it  through  the  passages  which  spake  of  Christ  as 
God,  through  the  miracles  done  upon  Him  or  done 
through  Him,  through  any  passage  which  shows 
more  than  man.  Thus  deleted,  his  Gospel  came  to 
a  close  with  the  words,  “  And  they  rolled  a  great 
stone  to  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  and  departed.” 
That  is  the  end  of  Jesus!  And  if  that  is  all,  then 
you  have  rolled  a  great  stone  to  the  door  of  the 
world’s  one  and  only  hope.  And  upon  what 
ground?  Upon  no  ground  whatever,  for  the  only 
Christ  is  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God. 

In  reviewing  the  evidence  for  this,  one  is  em¬ 
barrassed  by  the  wealth  of  the  material.  The  only 
difficulty  is  to  make  a  selection.  In  this  chapter  I 
shall  deal  for  the  greater  part  with  the  testimony 
of  Christ  Himself,  and  then  briefly  with  the 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


87 


corroboration  of  that  testimony  by  Christian 
experience. 

I.  THE  TESTIMONY  OE  CHRIST 

1.  Indirect  testimony.  By  this  I  mean  that 
without  directly  saying  that  He  was  God,  or  the 
Son  of  God,  Jesus  made  claim  to  distinctions  and 
powers  which  could  be  predicated  of  no  man.  He 
claimed  pre-existence,  saying,  “  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am,”  “  I  came  down  from  heaven,” 
“  Glorify  thou  me  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with 
thee  before  the  world  was”  (John  8:58;  6:38; 
17:5).  He  claimed  omnipotence,  for  He  said, 
“  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on 
earth.”  He  claimed  infallibility:  “  Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  never 
pass  away.”  And  not  only  infallibility,  but  He 
claimed  to  be  truth  itself :  “  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life.”  He  claimed  to  be  sinless,  and 
challenged  His  foes  to  convict  Him  of  any  sin.  In 
His  whole  ministry  and  teaching,  though  He  comes 
to  seek  and  to  save  sinners,  He  always  takes  the 
position  of  one  who  is  separate  from  sinners.  He 
claimed  an  exclusive  dominion  over  the  souls  of 
men,  calling  upon  men  to  leave  all  and  follow  Him 
and  declaring  that  even  the  closest  of  domestic  ties 
must  not  stand  in  the  way  of  allegiance  to  Him. 
When  He  is  about  to  die  He  gives  His  friends  a 
Supper,  a  sacrament  which  they  are  to  celebrate 
solely  in  memory  of  Him,  “  This  do  in  remem- 


88  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


brance  of  me.”  He  claimed  an  exclusive  and  pe¬ 
culiar  knowledge  of  God,  saying,  “  No  man  know- 
eth  the  Father  but  the  Son.”  He  speaks  to  the 
disciples  about  “  your  Father,”  and  teaches  them 
to  pray  beginning,  “  Our  Father,”  but  He  also 
speaks  of  “  My  ”  Father,  and  never  identifies 
His  relationship  to  the  Father  with  that  of  the 
disciples. 

He  claimed  omnipresence,  telling  the  disciples 
that  He  would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  He  claimed  the  right  to  forgive  sin,  and 
the  indignant  and  shocked  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
if  they  did  not  regard  Him  as  the  Son  of  God, 
were  correct  when  they  protested,  “  Who  but  God 
can  forgive  sin?”  He  said  to  His  disciples  He 
would  give  them  what  the  world  could  not  give 
them:  “My  peace  I  give  unto  you.  Not  as  the 
world  giveth,  give  I  unto  you.”  From  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  His  ministry  to  the  very  end  He  claimed 
to  be  Messiah,  that  is,  the  Christ,  the  one  predicted 
in  the  Old  Testament.  But  the  Messiah  was  re¬ 
garded  as  the  Son  of  God.  This  is  shown  by  the 
high  priest’s  question  to  Jesus  at  His  trial,  “  Tell 
us,  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God?  ”  More 
than  seventy  times  in  the  Gospels  Jesus  applies  to 
Himself  the  title,  Son  of  Man.  What  did  He 
mean  by  that?  If  He  was  just  a  man,  there  would 
be  no  sense  in  announcing  Himself  as  such,  any 
more  than  there  would  be  sense  in  your  emphasis¬ 
ing  what  everybody  sees  and  knows,  that  every 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


89 


man  is  a  son  of  man.  But  Jesus  called  Himself 
“  The  ”  Son  of  Man.  It  is  a  title  taken  from  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  where  it  was  foretold  that  the 
powers  of  this  earth  should  crumble  before  the 
Ancient  of  Days  and  one  like  unto  the  Son  of  Man, 
coming1  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  whose  kingdom 
and  dominion  should  be  universal  and  everlasting. 
That  is  what  Jesus  means  when  He  refers  to  Him¬ 
self  as  the  Son  of  Man.  No  ordinary  son  of  man, 
“  a  ”  son  of  man,  answers  to  the  implication  of  the 
title,  but  only  “  The  ”  Son  of  Man,  who  was  also 
the  Son  of  God,  or  our  Redeemer,  the  God-Man, 
Jesus  Christ. 

Jesus  claimed  the  right  finally  to  examine  and 
judge  and  sentence  men.  He  makes  the  stupendous 
claim  that  before  Him  shall  be  gathered  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  and  that  men  are  to  be  ac¬ 
cepted  or  rejected  and  punished  with  everlasting 
doom  upon  the  ground  of  their  attitude  towards 
Him.  “  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of 
the  least  of  these,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me.”  These 
extraordinary  claims — pre-existence,  infallibility, 
sinlessness,  absolute  dominion  over  men’s  souls, 
exclusive  knowledge  of  God,  omnipresence,  the 
right  to  forgive  sin  and  mediate  between  God  and 
man,  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  Man, 
the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead.  He  sealed  by 
His  death.  In  the  agony  and  trial  which  accom¬ 
panied  His  death  there  was  never  the  least  sugges¬ 
tion  of  withdrawing  a  single  one  of  His  great 


90  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


claims,  or  acknowledging  that  He  was  either  mis¬ 
taken  or  wicked.  On  the  contrary,  He  reiterated 
them  in  the  most  solemn  and  final  manner. 
Whether  or  not  there  was  any  such  man  as  Jesus, 
this  we  know — that  the  Jesus  whose  life  is  related 
in  the  New  Testament  claimed  rank  and  power 
which  belong  to  no  man,  and  which  can  belong 
only  to  God. 

2.  Direct  Testimony.  Not  only  did  Jesus  lay 
claim  to  divine  power  and  rank,  but  He  repeatedly 
and  definitely  said  that  He  was  God ,  or  the  Son 
of  God.  Perhaps  the  most  impressive  and  striking 
example  of  this  was  when  Jesus  took  His  disciples 
apart  at  Caesarea  Philippi  and  said  to  them  care¬ 
fully  and  deliberately,  “  Who  do  men  say  that  I, 
the  Son  of  Man,  am  ?  ”  The  time  had  now  come 
for  a  plain  statement  on  the  subject  of  His  person 
and  rank.  Some  of  the  people  thought  that  He 
was  Elijah,  others,  John  the  Baptist,  risen  from  the 
dead,  others,  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the  great  prophets 
— they  were  not  sure  which.  But  Jesus  pressed 
the  question  closer,  “  Who  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  ” 
Then  from  the  lips  of  Peter  came  the  great  answer, 
“  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.” 
This  confession  of  Peter,  Jesus  accepted  unre¬ 
servedly  and  with  exceeding  joy,  exclaiming, 
“Blessed  art  thou,  Simon,  Bar-jona;  for  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  also  unto  thee,  That 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


91 


church;  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.”  Whether  we  take  the  Catholic  view 
of  a  primacy  given  to  Peter  here  as  the  rock,  or  the 
common  Protestant  view  that  by  the  rock  Christ 
meant  the  confession  Peter  made,  all  must  agree 
that  Jesus  in  this  most  solemn  way  shows  to  His 
disciples  that  the  great  and  the  grand  thing  about 
Him  is  the  fact  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God.  What 
He  declared  here,  as  prophecy,  has  been  fulfilled. 
The  Church  was  founded  upon  the  rock  of  the 
Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus,  and  that  is  the  only 
reason  why  the  gates  of  hell  have  not  prevailed, 
and  shall  not  prevail,  against  it. 

After  Jesus  had  healed  the  man  born  blind,  and 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  had  cast  him  out  because 
he  insisted  that  Jesus  had  healed  him,  Jesus  in  His 
tender  compassion  found  the  poor  outcast  and  said 
to  him,  “  Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God?  ” 
He  answered  and  said,  “  Who  is  he,  Lord,  that  I 
may  believe  on  him?”  Jesus  said  unto  him, 
“  Thou  hast  both  seen  him,  and  he  it  is  that  speak- 
eth  with  thee.”  And  he  said,  Lord,  I  believe. 
“  And  he  worshipped  him.” 

That  Jesus  clearly  and  repeatedly  claimed  to  be 
God  is  evident  from  the  attitude  of  His  enemies. 
Back  of  all  His  human  foes  was  the  arch-foe  of 
every  soul,  the  devil  himself.  In  the  Temptation, 
the  account  of  which  could  have  come  from  Jesus 
only,  the  devil  said  to  Jesus,  “If  thou  be  the  Son 
of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 


92  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


bread.”  That  was  equivalent  to  saying,  “  You 
claim  to  be  the  Son  of  God;  if  you  are,  then  prove 
it  by  this  miracle.”  When  the  Jews,  angry  at  His 
searching  teaching  and  preaching,  took  up  stones 
to  stone  Him,  Jesus  asked  them  for  which  of  His 
good  works  they  were  going  to  stone  Him?  They 
replied,  “  For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not,  but 
because  that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself 
God.”  That  was  their  chief  rage  at  Him,  that  He 
claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  At  His  trial  when 
the  perjured  witnesses  could  not  fabricate  sufficient 
evidence  upon  which  to  condemn  Jesus  before  the 
council  of  the  Jews,  the  high  priest  swept  the  whole 
mass  of  false  testimony  aside  by  coming  directly 
to  the  point  and  asking  Jesus  to  say  whether  or  not 
He  was  the  Son  of  God.  “  I  adjure  thee  by  the 
living  God,  that  thou  tell  us  whether  thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him, 
Thou  has  said.” 

How  anyone  can  go  through  the  Gospels  and  not 
be  confronted  everywhere  by  the  deity  of  Christ, 
either  implied  in  the  mighty  claims  He  makes,  or 
directly  asserted  by  Christ,  is  a  mystery.  Yet  there 
are  still  those  who  pretend  to  do  it.  As  I  have 
already  said,  the  only  way  in  which  they  do  it  is 
the  way  Thomas  Jefferson  did  it,  namely,  to  go 
through  the  Gospels  and  deliberately  cut  out  all 
those  passages  which  refer  to  His  divine  power 
and  nature.  When  you  have  done  that,  you  have 
taken  away  Christ  Himself.  You  have  not  even  a 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


93 


few  fragments  which  you  can  piece  into  a  har¬ 
monious  whole. 

The  character  of  Jesus  is  humanity’s  one  great 
moral  asset.  Truth  and  sincerity  shone  in  His  face 
as  the  stars  in  the  face  of  the  night.  Directly  and 
indirectly,  by  teaching  and  by  miracle,  by  direct 
asseveration  and  by  accepting  the  witness,  or  the 
worship,  or  the  taunting,  of  others,  Jesus  bore 
witness  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God.  If  He  is  not, 
then  He  was  a  bad  man.  Aut  deus  aut  non  bonus 
homo.  There  is  no  other  alternative.  A  preacher 
in  New  York  said,  not  so  long  ago — he  is  one  of 
those  who  think  to  save  some  sort  of  a  Jesus  out 
of  the  wreck  of  Christ’s  divinity — “  What  is  God  ? 
We  call  God  the  power  which  is  responsible  for  the 
universe — its  creation  and  continuation.  But  we 
may  as  well  face  facts.  Christ  was  a  wonderful 
man,  a  beautiful  character.  He  was  the  superlative 
of  anything  you  may  choose  to  call  Him.  But  to 
say  that  a  man  born  upon  this  earth,  created  by  the 
power  of  God,  had  the  power  of  this  God  of 
creation  is  superstition.  We  may  accept  the  spir¬ 
itual  teachings  of  Christ  as  the  basis  of  our  reli¬ 
gion,  but  we  need  not  believe  that  He  ascended  and 
is  seated  upon  the  right  hand  of  God.” 

There  could  be  nothing  so  impossible  or  absurd 
as  such  a  Christ.  If  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of 
God  as  Fie  claimed  to  be,  as  all  His  disciples  took 
Him  to  be,  and  for  claiming  to  be  which  all  His 
enemies  hated  Him  and  killed  Him,  then,  instead 


94.  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  being  the  beautiful  teacher,  the  superlative  of 
almost  anything  you  choose  to  call  Him,  Jesus  is 
either  the  superlative  fool  or  the  superlative  knave 
and  impostor  of  history.  But  we  know  that  He 
was  not  a  fool,  for  the  man  who  utters  these  great 
teachings  had  intellect  such  as  the  world  had  never 
seen.  And  we  know  that  He  was  not  a  liar  or  a 
knave,  for  such  a  man  could  never  have  won  and 
held  the  devotion  and  the  love  of  countless  millions 
of  beings. 

II.  THE  TESTIMONY  OUTSIDE  OE  CHRIST 

1.  The  Four  Great  Miracles.  The  first  of  these 
was  the  miracle  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  In  recent 
days  we  have  heard  men  speak  lightly  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  as  if  it  were  a  thing  hard  to  accept  and  of 
no  use  when  you  did  accept  it.  We  wonder  if 
people  who  talk  thus  have  ever  read  the  Bible  at 
all.  The  angel  who,  according  to  the  great  histo¬ 
rian,  Luke,  made  the  announcement  to  Mary,  evi¬ 
dently  thought  differently  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  for 
he  said,  “  The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee 
and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee;  therefore  also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  The 
Virgin  Birth  to  Mary,  and  in  the  course  of  time, 
when  she  made  it  known,  to  others  also,  bore  wit¬ 
ness  to  the  Divine  Sonship  of  her  child. 

Then  there  are  the  two  miracles  of  utterance. 
First,  the  Voice  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus  when  the 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


95 


Holy  Spirit  descended  like  a  dove  and  a  voice  was 
heard  saying,  “  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased.  Hear  ye  him.”  The  same  sen¬ 
tence  was  spoken  when  He  was  on  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration.  But  the  one  great  miracle  which 
proved  the  claim  of  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  to  which  the  apostles  appealed  in  their 
preaching,  was  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection. 
St.  Paul,  in  the  beginning  of  his  letter  to  the 
Romans,  speaks  of  Jesus  Christ  as  one  who  was 
“  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead.”  They  preached 
Christ  everywhere  as  the  Son  of  God  who  was  the 
world’s  Redeemer,  and  the  proof  to  which  they 
appealed  was  His  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Not 
only  was  it  a  mighty  sign  and  wonder,  but  the  very 
one  that  the  prophets  had  foretold  would  show  the 
power  of  God,  to  wit,  that  God  would  not  suffer 
His  Holy  One  to  see  corruption,  but  would  raise 
Him  from  the  dead. 

Time  would  fail  to  tell  of  the  rich  testimony  of 
the  disciples  and  the  apostles,  how  they  worshipped 
Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  how  they  prayed  to  Him, 
how  they  built  all  their  hopes  on  the  fact  that  He 
was  God,  how  they  endured  persecution  and  death 
rather  than  deny  Him,  and  when  they  died,  like 
Stephen,  saw  Him  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God ;  and  how  all  their  future  was  painted  with  the 
glowing  expectation  of  the  day  when  He  should 
come  again,  and  they  would  be  with  Him  forever. 


96  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Just  what  people  think  they  have  left  that  is 
worth  talking  about  when  they  have  stripped  Jesus 
of  His  divinity,  it  is  difficult  to  see.  Certainly  not 
one  who  answers  the  two  great  needs  of  the  human 
soul,  the  need  for  love,  infinite  love,  and  the  need 
of  forgiveness.  The  parlour  philosopher  may  be 
interested  in  this  Jesus  who  is  the  creation  of 
fancy,  but  there  is  nothing  about  Him  that  will 
help  or  save  the  soul  of  a  sinner.  One  hears  quoted 
very  often,  and  very  thoughtlessly,  Richard  Wat¬ 
son  Gilder’s  lines : 

“If  Jesus  Christ  be  man 
(And  only  man),  I  say 
That  of  all  mankind  I  will  cleave  to  Him, 

And  to  Him  will  I  cleave  alway. 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  God 

(And  the  only  God),  I  swear 

I  will  follow  Him  through  heaven  and  hell, 

The  earth,  the  sea,  and  the  air.” 

The  last  part  is  sense  and  reason;  the  first  part 
is  nonsense.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  man,  and  only  a 
man,  there  is  nothing  in  Him  worth  following  and 
worth  cleaving  to.  The  poet  sings  as  if  it  made 
little  difference  which  way  the  vote  fell,  man,  or 
Son  of  God.  But  it  does  make  a  difference,  an 
awful,  immeasurable  difference.  If  Christ  were 
not  God,  then  we  do  not  know  that  God  is  Love. 
If  Christ  be  not  God,  we  have  no  Saviour  who 
gave  Himself  as  a  ransom  for  our  sins.  If  Christ 
be  not  God,  we  have  no  forgiveness.  If  Christ  be 


WAS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD? 


97 


not  God,  then  death,  and  if  not  death,  then  hell, 
ends  all.  Those  whom  we  have  loved  and  lost 
awhile  in  this  life  we  shall  never,  never  behold 
again.  Never!  The  world  is  just  as  dark  as  that 
pagan  world  into  which  Christ  came  when  hope 
was  dead.  But  if  Christ  be  God,  then  we  have  a 
Rock,  a  Rock  that  is  “  higher  than  I  ” ;  a  Rock 
against  which  all  the  storms  of  time  and  eternity 
shall  sweep  and  break  in  vain. 

“  Rock  of  Ages,  cleft  for  me. 

Let  me  hide  myself  in  Thee !  ” 


VI 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS? 

"  Christ  died  for  our  sins ,  according  to  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.” — i  Cor.  15:3. 

I  DON’T  believe  a  word  of  it !  ” 

“You  don’t  believe  in  the  Atonement  ?  ” 

“  No;  I  do  not!” 

“  How,  then,  do  you  think  that  we  are  saved  ?  ” 
“Saved?  It  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by 
being  saved.” 

“  I  mean  just  what  the  Bible  does,  when  it 
speaks  of  being  saved  and  being  lost.” 

“  I  think  we  are  saved  by  obeying  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  by  following  His  example  and  doing  His 
will;  not  by  His  death.” 

The  above  colloquy  took  place  at  the  close  of  a 
service  in  a  Presbyterian  Church  where  the  min¬ 
ister  had  preached  a  sermon  on  the  Atonement, 
or  how  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  Standing  by 
itself,  such  a  comment,  sad  enough  so  far  as  the 
individual  uttering  it  is  concerned,  would  mean 
but  little.  But  this  man  is  the  representative  of 
a  very  large  group.  His  sentiments  can  be  heard, 
I  suppose,  in  almost  any  Protestant  Church.  We 

98 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  99 


might  as  well  face  the  fact  that  two  kinds  of 
Christianity  are  being  preached  and  taught  in 
our  Protestant  churches  today.  One  is  a  Chris¬ 
tianity  of  ideals  and  inspiration  and  good  works. 
Christ  is  preached  as  the  great  teacher,  example 
and  inspirer  and  leader.  With  some  He  is  di¬ 
vine,  with  others  He  is  only  man,  though  the 
noblest  flower  which  has  bloomed  on  the  stock 
of  our  humanity.  This  is  a  Christianity  of  in¬ 
struction  and  education.  If  its  disciples  use  the 
word  “  salvation,”  that  is  all  that  they  mean. 
The  other  kind  of  Christianity  is  the  Christian¬ 
ity  of  redemption.  Man  is  a  sinner  and  under 
the  condemnation  of  God’s  law.  He  could  do 
nothing  to  save  himself.  But  God  sent  His  Only 
Begotten  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  to  die  for  man,  in 
place  of  man,  as  a  substitute  for  man.  By  faith 
in  Christ  as  a  Redeemer,  man  is  forgiven,  the 
guilt  and  the  stain  of  his  sin  is  taken  away,  and 
he  is  restored  to  the  family  of  God.  In  the  former 
kind  of  Christianity,  the  Christianity  of  education 
and  ideals  and  inspiration,  the  death  of  Christ  is 
but  an  incident,  though  a  moving  and  beautiful  in¬ 
cident.  In  the  Christianity  of  Redemption  the 
death  of  Christ  is  the  one  grand  truth  around 
which  gather  all  the  other  truths  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion.  It  is  a  fact  eternal  in  its  sig¬ 
nificance  and  universal  in  its  application.  In  the 
Christianity  of  Redemption  this  truth  takes  the 
place  in  preaching  which  it  did  in  the  preaching  of 


100  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


St.  Paul,  when  he  said  to  the  Corinthians,  “For  I 

delivered  unto  you,  first  of  all how  that  Christ 

♦ 

died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures.”  If 
you  take  away  the  death  of  Christ  from  the  man 
whose  Christianity  is  the  Christianity  of  education 
he  is  not  much  troubled,  for  he  has  the  parables 
and  the  sayings  of  Jesus  left.  His  religion  is  not 
impaired.  But  if  you  take  away  the  death  of 
Christ  from  the  man  whose  Christianity  is  the 
Christianity  of  Redemption,  you  have  taken  all  that 
he  has.  His  only  hope  is  Christ  crucified.  On  the 
crucifix  where  the  death  of  Our  Lord  on  the  Cross 
is  portrayed  you  have  read  the  Latin  words,  Spes 
U nica ,  the  Only  Hope.  The  man  who  feels  that  he 
is  a  sinner  and  must  have  a  Saviour  greater  than 
himself  has  no  other  hope  but  Christ  crucified  for 
his  sins. 

Regardless  of  denominational  names  and  di¬ 
visions,  the  real  cleavage  in  Protestant  Christianity 
today  is  along  this  line  just  indicated.  There  are 
really  just  two  parties,  those  who  think  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  a  religion  of  education  and  of  inspiration 
and  those  who  think  of  it  as  a  religion  of  redemp¬ 
tion  for  sinners;  those  who  follow  Christ  as  a 
leader,  teacher,  example,  and  those  who  trust  in 
Him  as  a  Redeemer.  It  will  now  be  my  purpose 
to  show  that  the  only  true  Christianity  is  the 
Christianity  of  Redemption  and  that  the  only  real, 
historic  Christ  is  the  Christ  who  died  for  our  sins 
on  Calvary’s  Cross. 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  101 


I.  THAT  CHRIST  DIED  FOR  OUR  SINS  IS  THE 
CHRISTIANITY  OF  THE  APOSTrES 

Before  He  died  and  after  His  resurrection,  our 
Lord  made  provision  for  the  preaching  of  His 
Gospel  to  all  the  world.  The  Gospels  do  not  tell 
us  how  or  what  the  apostles  preached.  But  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament  we  have  the  plain  and  unmistakable 
record  and  account  of  what  it  was  the  Apostles 
preached,  and  therefore  upon  what  kind  of  a  foun¬ 
dation  they  built  the  Christian  Church.  I  need  not 
spend  much  time  on  this,  for  the  fact  is  quickly 
and  easily  established  by  any  one  who  reads  the 
pages  of  the  Acts,  or  the  Epistles,  or  the  Book  of 
Revelation. 

1.  The  testimony  of  St.  Peter .  The  great  fig¬ 
ure  of  the  early  Church  was  Peter.  The  weakest 
and  most  unworthy  when  Christ  was  delivered  into 
the  hands  of  His  enemies  and  put  to  death  on  the 
Cross,  Peter,  forgiven  and  restored  by  Jesus  after 
His  resurrection,  became  the  great  leader  and  the 
great  voice  of  the  Church.  The  first  pages  of  the 
book  of  the  Acts  preserve  for  us  the  outlines  of 
Peter’s  effective  and  Pentecostal  preaching.  In 
substance  it  was  this :  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  the 
Jews  had  crucified,  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Messiah  of  whom  the  prophets  had 
spoken,  appointed  to  be  the  Judge  and  the  Saviour 
of  men.  Therefore  it  was  the  duty  of  men  every¬ 
where  to  repent  of  their  sins  and  believe  in  Christ. 


102  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


When  they  did  this  they  would  receive  the  remis¬ 
sion  of  sins.  That  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  that  He  had  been  put  to  death,  and  that 
now  men  could  have  forgiveness  of  sin  through 
faith  in  Him,  that  is  the  message  Peter  delivers 
whenever  we  hear  him  speak.  In  these  first  ser¬ 
mons  he  does  not,  directly,  say  that  it  is  on  the 
ground  of  the  death  of  Jesus  that  men’s  sins  are 
forgiven.  But  he  does  declare  the  great  fact  of 
remission  of  sins  through  Christ,  that  the  great 
office  of  Christ  is  to  forgive,  and  as  proof  that  the 
men  to  whom  he  was  speaking  needed  forgiveness 
of  sin  he  cites  the  fact  of  the  crime  and  sin  of 
putting  the  Lord  of  Glory  to  death  on  the  Cross. 

Because  Peter  does  not,  in  these  first  sermons, 
definitely  tell  men  that  the  ground  of  their  forgive¬ 
ness  is  the  death  of  Christ,  some  have  thought  that 
Peter,  only  seven  weeks  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
knows  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  or 
forgiveness  of  sin  on  the  ground  of  the  death  of 
Christ.  But  Peter  was  speaking  to  Jews  whose 
whole  religious  training  and  tradition  taught  them, 
through  their  sacrificial  system,  that  without  shed¬ 
ding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sin.  But  if 
there  is  any  doubt  as  to  what  Peter  took  to  be  the 
ground  of  forgiveness  through  Christ,  that  doubt 
is  dispelled  by  his  first  epistle.  In  that  great  docu¬ 
ment  Peter  is  writing  to  comfort  and  strengthen 
believers  in  Jesus  Christ  who  are  suffering  persecu¬ 
tion.  Pie  reminds  them  of  their  great  hope,  the  in- 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  103 


heritance,  incorruptible  and  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away,  reserved  for  them  in  heaven. 
But  what  is  it  that  he  says  to  them  in  order  to 
encourage  them  and  make  them  persevere  to  the 
end?  Peter  had  been  the  companion  of  Jesus  for 
three  years.  He  had  had  an  unusually  intimate 
and  dramatic  relationship  with  Him.  He  must 
have  remembered  many  of  the  comforting  sayings 
of  Christ,  many  of  the  merciful  acts  of  Christ 
which  would  have  been  applicable  to  the  case  of 
these  persecuted  Christians.  One  might  think 
Peter  would  have  referred  to  some  of  those  say¬ 
ings  and  some  of  those  acts.  But  there  is  not  a 
word  of  this.  The  one  great  fact  which  he  holds 
up  before  these  troubled  believers  is  the  fact  that 
Christ  died  for  their  sins.  He  exhorts  them  to 
fidelity  by  reminding  them  that  they  had  been  re¬ 
deemed,  not  as  slaves  might  be  redeemed — and 
some  of  them  no  doubt  were  slaves — by  silver  and 
gold,  but  with  Precious  Blood,  even  the  Blood  of 
Christ.  If  some  of  them  are  suffering  wrongfully, 
for  offenses  they  have  not  committed,  let  them  be 
comforted  by  remembering  that  Jesus,  who  was  a 
sinless  man,  also  suffered,  dying  on  the  Cross  not 
for  His  own  sins,  but  for  our  sins;  “  who  His  own 
self  bare  our  sins  in  His  body  on  the  tree,  that  we 
having  died  unto  sin  might  live  unto  righteousness.” 

And  not  only  Peter,  but  all  the  other  apostles 
who  speak  in  the  New  Testament,  when  they  are 
urging  men  to  their  duty  in  this  life  and  pressing 


104  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


upon  them  the  Christian  virtues,  never  appeal  to 
the  sayings  of  our  Lord,  which  might  have  been 
aptly  quoted,  but  almost  invariably  derive  their 
motives  for  the  discharge  of  Christian  duty  and 
their  confirmation  of  Christian  hope  from  the 
death  and  passion  of  Christ,  from  those  hours  of 
shame  and  anguish  in  which  our  Lord’s  earthly 
ministry  closed.  Why  were  they  so  silent  about 
what  preachers  today  are  so  vocal,  the  courage, 
sanctity,  wisdom,  compassion  of  Jesus?  It  was 
because  that  although  they  had  been  with  Jesus, 
the  great  fact  they  now  saw  as  they  looked  back 
and  looked  forward,  was  the  fact  of  His  death  for 
the  sins  of  the  world,  that  He  died  for  our  sins. 

2.  St.  John.  We  pass  by  his  teaching  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  for  that  belongs  more  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Jesus.  In  his  first  letter  John  makes  it 
plain  that  he  believes  man  is  a  sinner  and  in  need 
of  a  Saviour.  He  says  that  the  whole  world  lieth 
in  sin,  and  that  whoever  says  he  hath  no  sin  is  a 
liar  and  the  truth  is  not  in  him.  He  also  teaches 
that  God  forgives  the  man  who  confesses  his  sin. 
To  this  he  adds  the  definite  Christian  message  of 
the  relationship  of  Jesus  and  His  death  to  the  for¬ 
giveness  of  sin,  telling  us  that  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
His  Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,  and  God’s  love 
is  explained  and  demonstrated  and  proffered  to 
man  by  the  death  of  Christ;  “  Herein  is  love,  not 
that  we  loved  God,  but  that  He  loved  us  and  sent 
His  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins.”  In 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  105 


the  Apocalypse,  amid  so  much  that  is  obscure  and 
phantasmal,  the  one  clear,  predominant,  sublime 
and  unmistakable  figure  is  that  of  the  Lamb  who 
was  slain  for  the  sins  of  men.  From  the  wrath 
of  the  Lamb,  whose  mercy  they  have  scorned,  the 
wicked  implore  the  mountains  and  the  rocks  to  fall 
on  them  and  hide  them,  and  to  the  Lamb  the  re¬ 
deemed  saints,  they  who  have  come  up  out  of  great 
tribulation  and  washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  sing  all  their  re¬ 
sounding  psalms  of  praise  and  honour. 

3.  The  Letter  to  the  Hebrews.  The  authorship 
of  this  epistle  is  disputed,  but  no  one  disputes  the 
meaning  of  it,  for  its  one  idea,  illustrated  and  ex¬ 
plained  in  so  many  ways,  is  that  Christ  is  man¬ 
kind’s  great  High  Priest  who,  through  the  Eternal 
Spirit,  offered  Himself  as  sacrifice  unto  God  for 
our  sins,  making  a  sacrifice  which,  unlike  that  of 
Israel’s  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atonement,  can 
never  be  repeated,  for  it  was  done  once  for  all. 

4.  St.  Paul.  It  is  unnecessary  to  state  what 
Paul  taught  about  the  death  of  Christ.  A  striking 
proof  of  the  place  he  gave  to  the  death  of  Christ  as 
a  death  atoning  for  our  sins,  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  just  at  present  the  chief  effort  of  those  who 
reject  Christianity  as  a  religion  of  redemption 
from  sins  by  the  death  of  Christ  is  to  discredit  this 
idea  of  Christianity  by  saying  that  it  is  an  idea  that 
comes  from  St.  Paul,  but  does  not  come  from 
Jesus.  Wherever  one  opens  the  writings  of  St. 


106  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Paul  it  is  the  Cross  of  which  he  is  speaking. 
Wherever  he  goes  he  is  determined  to  know  among 
the  people  nothing  save  Jesus  Christ  and  Him 
crucified.  He  delivered  unto  men  first  of  all ,  that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  He  would  not  glory,  save  in  the  Cross. 
The  great  evidence  of  the  love  of  God  for  man  was 
just  the  same  with  Paul  as  it  was  with  John — 
“  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us  in  that 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.” 
Had  we  opened  that  great  heart,  which  Chrysostom 
called  the  heart  of  the  world,  we  would  have  found 
upon  it  these  words,  “  The  Son  of  God,  who  loved 
me  and  gave  himself  for  me.” 

In  this  brief  sketch  we  have  seen  what  place  the 
death  of  Christ  for  our  sins  took  in  the  preaching 
of  the  men  who  established  the  Church  in  the 
world.  When,  therefore,  we  listen  to  men,  or  read 
men,  who  today  know  better  than  Peter  and  Paul 
and  John  did,  the  meaning  of  Christianity,  and  who 
tell  us  that  it  has  some  other  meaning  than  this, 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  let  us  remember  that 
however  clever  and  learned  these  men  are,  and 
however  much  followed  after  by  the  multitude, 
who  say  as  the  multitude  said  of  Herod  when  he 
made  the  people  an  oration,  “  It  is  the  voice  of  a 
god,  and  not  of  a  man !  ” — let  us  remember  that 
this  preaching  of  Christianity  was  not  the  preach¬ 
ing  which  established  the  Church  in  the  world  and 
established  it  so  firmly  that  the  storms  of  the  cen- 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  107 


turies  have  not  overthrown  it.  The  preaching 
which  established  Christianity  in  the  world  was 
the  preaching  of  the  Cross,  the  forgiveness  of  sin 
through  the  death  of  Christ. 

II.  THE  TESTIMONY  OE  JESUS 

We  have  seen  what  the  answer  of  the  apostles  is 
to  our  question,  Did  Christ  die  for  our  sins? 
What  is  the  answer  of  Jesus  Himself?  Is  His 
answer  the  same  as  that  of  the  apostles  ?  the  same 
as  that  of  Peter  and  Paul  and  John?  Everything 
depends  upon  this. 

1.  The  pre-eminent  place  given  in  the  Gospels 
to  the  story  of  the  death  of  Christ  would  suggest  to 
us  that  their  authors  would  not  have  given  so  much 
space  to  the  death  of  Jesus  unless  there  had  been 
something  in  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  attitude 
of  Jesus  which  made  them  feel  that  His  death  was 
the  one  great  fact  in  comparison  with  which  all  else 
was  subsidiary .  Such  events  as  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
His  temptation,  His  Transfiguration,  the  Lord’s 
Supper,  and  even  the  Ascension  into  Heaven,  are 
missing  from  one  or  more  of  the  Gospels.  But  all 
of  the  Gospels  relate  with  the  fullest  detail,  the 
death  of  Christ. 

2.  The  sayings  of  Jesus  about  His  death  are 
the  natural  explanation  of  this  united  and  elabo¬ 
rated  testimony  about  it  in  the  Four  Gospels.  In 
other  words,  after  what  Jesus  said  about  His  death 
it  was  natural  for  men  who  wrote  the  story  of  His 


108  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


life  to  give  pre-eminence  to  the  fact  of  His  death. 
At  the  first  passover  He  said,  “  Destroy  this  temple 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up/’— meaning  the 
temple  of  His  body.  To  Nicodemus,  a  few  days 
afterward,  He  said  that  “  As  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
Man  be  lifted  up.”  When  the  Jews  insisted  upon 
a  sign,  He  said  that  as  Jonah  was  in  the  belly  of 
the  whale,  even  so  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  In 
His  parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  He  referred  to 
His  approaching  death,  and  again  in  His  parable 
of  how  the  husbandmen  killed  the  heir  and  son. 
Most  tenderly,  too,  when  the  disciples  rebuked 
Mary  for  the  costly  gift  of  the  ointment  and  pure 
spikenard  which  she  had  poured  over  His  head  and 
His  feet,  He  counseled  them  to  let  her  alone,  for 
she  had  kept  it  against  the  day  of  His  burying. 
When  the  Greeks  came  to  visit  Him,  in  His  moods 
of  alternate  jubilation  and  dread  He  cried  out,  “  I, 
if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.”  On 
the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  He  spake  with 
Moses  and  Elijah  concerning  His  decease  which 
He  should  accomplish  at  Jerusalem.  Nor  were  His. 
references  to  His  death  just  occasional  or  inci¬ 
dental,  for  at  least  three  of  the  evangelists  tell  us 
that  in  the  most  direct  and  careful  and  positive  way 
He  taught  the  disciples  both  the  fact  and  the  man¬ 
ner  of  His  death — that  He  would  be  betrayed  into 
the  hands  of  the  Jewish  rulers,  who  in  turn  would 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  109 


hand  Him  over  to  the  Gentiles,  that  is,  the 
Romans,  who  would  put  Him  to  death  by  cruci¬ 
fixion.  For  the  beginning  of  this  instruction  Jesus 
chose  one  of  the  most  impressive  moments  of  His 
ministry,  when  Peter  had  publicly  confessed  Him 
as  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  “  From  that  time 
forth  began  Jesus  to  shew  unto  his  disciples  how 
that  he  must  go  to  Jerusalem  and  suffer  many 
things  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and  scribes, 
and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day  ” 
(Matt.  16:21).  “  Let  these  sayings  sink  down 

into  your  ears :  for  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  deliv¬ 
ered  into  the  hands  of  men  ”  (Luke  9:44). 

3.  The  attitude  of  Jesus  towards  His  death ,  or 
what  He  felt  about  it  rather  than  what  He  said 
about  it.  I  shall  cite  three  instances  of  the  depth 
and  peculiarity  of  the  feeling  of  Jesus  towards  His 
death. 

a.  Towards  Peter.  When  Peter  had  confessed 
Him  as  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  and  Jesus 
had  told  the  disciples  of  His  rejection  and  cruci¬ 
fixion,  Peter,  thinking  that  such  a  fate  was  impos¬ 
sible  for  the  Son  of  God,  cried  out,  “  Be  it  far 
from  thee,  Lord:  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee.”  But 
Jesus  said,  “  Get  thee  behind  me  Satan:  for  thou 
art  an  offence  unto  me ;  for  thou  savourest  not  the 
things  that  be  of  God,  but  those  that  be  of  men.” 
The  only  explanation  of  the  terrible  rebuke  given 
to  the  man  whom,  but  a  moment  before,  Jesus  had 
publicly  thanked  and  praised  for  his  confession,  is 


110  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


that  Christ’s  future  crucifixion  and  death  was  a  ter¬ 
rible  reality  to  Him,  that  He  recognises  in  it  the 
climax  of  His  ministry  of  reconciliation,  and  that 
he  who  tempts  Him  to  turn  back  from  it,  is  His 
enemy  and  the  enemy  of  mankind. 

b.  Towards  the  Greeks.  When  He  first  heard 
of  the  visit  of  the  Greeks  and  their  wish  to  see 
Him,  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit,  as  He  saw  the  future 
conquests  of  the  Cross,  and  said,  “  The  hour  is 
come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  glorified.” 
But  when  He  thought  of  the  price  that  He  was  to 
pay,  of  the  rejection,  the  shame  and  the  death,  He 
cried  out,  “  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour!  ”  In 
this  hour  which  was  to  mark  His  glory,  the  hour 
of  His  death,  there  was  also  that  which  was  ter¬ 
rible  and  overwhelming. 

c.  Gethsemane.  Why  did  Christ  not  meet  His 
death  calmly  and  without  evidence  of  distress  and 
anguish,  as  Socrates,  or  many  another  noble  man 
has  met  cruel,  painful,  and  unmerited  death  ? 
There  is  but  one  answer,  but  one  explanation  of 
that  strange  scene  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane, 
the  pathetic  but  vain  appeal  to  the  sleeping  dis¬ 
ciples,  the  intense  agony  which  brought  the  blood 
from  His  brow,  the  imploring  cry,  “  O,  my  Father, 
if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me,”  and 
this  is  that  it  is  not  physical  death  with  its  cruel 
and  dark  accompaniments  that  Jesus  is  shrinking 
from,  but  a  death  such  as  no  man  before  had  ever 
died,  and  that  is,  a  death  from  sin.  The  strange 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  Ill 


agony  was  that  of  a  man  whose  soul  was  to  be 
made  an  offering  for  a  sin,  and  that  man,  One 
who  knew  no  sin.  One  who  was  the  Beloved  Son 
of  God. 

4.  The  Sign  that  He  gave  the  Church.  He 
taught  them  by  His  words  and  He  taught  them  by 
His  strange  and  awful  attitude  towards  His  death, 
that  His  death  had  a  pre-eminent  place  in  His  Gos¬ 
pel,  that  it  was  death  for  sin,  bearing  for  us  the 
guilt  and  the  punishment  of  sin.  But  lest  there 
should  be  any  misapprehension  or  unreadiness  to 
believe,  Jesus  taught  His  disciples — and  all  who 
through  them  have  come  to  believe  in  Him — by  a 
sign,  the  beautiful  sign  of  the  Lord’s  Supper.  This 
Supper  was  to  be  observed  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,  until  He  should  come  again.  When  He 
broke  the  bread,  He  said,  “  This  is  my  body  which 
is  broken  for  you.”  When  He  gave  them  the  cup. 
He  said,  “  Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  my  blood 
of  the  new  covenant  which  is  shed  for  many  for 
the  remission  of  sins.”  We  have  three  accounts 
of  the  institution  of  the  Supper  in  the  Gospels  and 
one  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  Each  of  them  differs 
from  the  other  as  to  the  precise  words  used  by 
Jesus,  but  all  agree  in  the  preservation  of  the  same 
fundamental  idea,  that  His  death  was  for  others, 
and  for  others  who  were  sinners.  Christ  worked 
great  miracles ;  yet  He  never  said,  “  This  miracle 
is  done  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  He  preached 
great  sermons,  yet  He  never  said  at  the  end  of  a 


112  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


sermon,  “  This  sermon  is  preached  for  the  remis¬ 
sion  of  sins.”  He  was  transfigured  on  the  Mount, 
but  not  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  He  was  tempted 
of  the  devil,  but  He  did  not  say  it  was  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  But  He  did  say  that  His  death 
was  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

Such,  then,  is  the  answer  to  our  question,  “  Did 
Christ  die  for  our  sins  ?  ”  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  His 
words  and  by  His  sobs  and  tears,  and  by  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  which  He  gave  to  His  Church,  and  by  His 
teaching  to  His  disciples  after  His  resurrection, 
said  that  His  death  was  for  our  sins.  The  apostles, 
whom  He  sent  forth  to  preach  His  GospeLin  all 
the  world,  declared  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
and  upon  that  truth  they  built  the  Church.  Chris¬ 
tianity  knows  nothing  but  the  Cross.  Without  the 
Cross,  without  the  death  of  Christ  for  our  sins, 
there  is  no  Christianity.  Take  out  the  Cross,  and 
the  music  of  Christianity  dies  into  terrible  silence, 
and  the  glory  of  it  fades  into  darkness.  The  Son 
of  God  crucified  for  our  sins  is  our  only  hope.  In 
His  name  I  lift  Him  up,  this  Christ  who  is  still 
able  to  save  the  prodigal  and  wastrel,  the  beggar 
and  millionaire,  the  illiterate  and  philosopher,  the 
indifferent  and  the  scoffer.  We  do  not  need  to 
wait  to  believe  until  we  can  understand  how  it  is 
that  the  death  of  the  just  man  is  the  ground  of  the 
forgiveness  of  the  unjust  man.  Paul  did  not 
know,  and  John  did  not  know,  and  Peter  did  not 
know.  Yet  that  was  what  they  believed,  and  that 


DID  CHRIST  DIE  FOR  OUR  SINS?  113 


was  what  they  preached.  All  that  we  are  asked  to 
do  is  to  believe.  “  And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
Man  be  lifted  up:  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.” 


VII 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD? 

“  They  entered  in  and  found  not  the  body  of  the  Lord 
Jesus/’ — Luke;  24 :  3. 

NO  one  ever  found  it!  The  grave  of  Jesus 
is  still  without  a  tenant.  “  For  the  histo¬ 
rian, ^  writes  Renan,  “the  life  of  Jesus 
finishes  with  His  last  sigh.”  But  the  life  of  the 
Christian  commences  with  the  Resurrection.  The 
empty  tomb  was  the  cradle  of  the  Church.  If 
those  women  who  came  early  to  the  tomb,  or  the 
disciples  who  came  after  them,  had  been  able  to 
find  the  body  of  Jesus,  there  or  elsewhere,  there 
never  would  have  been  a  Christian  Church. 

The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  is  a  fact  of  spiritual 
significance.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  fact,  and  as  such, 
must  come  into  court  and  submit  itself  to  examina¬ 
tion  and  be  tested  by  the  laws  of  evidence.  In 
answering  the  question  “  Did  Christ  rise  from  the 
dead?”  our  task  will  be  to  set  forth  the  evidence 
for  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  from 
the  dead.  In  doing  this  we  shall  first  show  that 
the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  created  the 
Christian  Church ;  and  secondly,  we  shall  show  the 
ground  upon  which  that  belief  rested. 

114 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  115 


I.  BELIEF  in  the  resurrection  created  the 

CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  look  upon  any  given 
effect  without  knowing  in  our  inmost  soul  that 
there  must  have  been  a  corresponding  and  sufficient 
cause.  No  one  doubts  that  the  Christian  Church 
is  here  in  the  world,  and  has  been  here  for  centu¬ 
ries.  Wherever  you  go  in  the  world,  today,  you 
will  find  Christian  people  holding  Christian  views 
and  worshipping  Jesus  Christ.  It  would  be  im¬ 
possible  to  write  a  history  of  the  world  for  the 
past  nineteen  centuries  and  not  in  every  page  find 
it  necessary  to  say  something  about  the  Christian 
Church,  and  the  influence  it  has  exerted  on  the 
affairs  of  mankind,  the  way  it  has  guided  the 
people’s  thought  and  hope,  the  physical  and  intel¬ 
lectual  controversies  which  have  been  waged  over 
the  interpretation  of  its  doctrines,  even  the  cruel 
and  wicked  things  that  have  often  been  done  in  its 
name.  Wherever  you  turn,  this  great  fact  con¬ 
fronts  you — Christianity. 

The  question  then  is,  How  did  the  Church  come 
to  be?  Whence  did  it  come?  What  cause  pro¬ 
duced  this  effect?  The  answer  of  Christianity 
itself  is  very  clear  and  direct :  The  Church  was 
established  in  the  earth  by  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  from  the  dead.  No  one  would  say  that  the 
birth  of  Jesus  created  the  Church.  Jesus  might 
have  performed  all  the  miracles  which  are  at¬ 
tributed  to  Him  in  the  Gospels,  have  spoken  all  the 


116  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


parables  and  preached  all  the  sermons  that  are  re¬ 
corded  there,  and  at  the  end  of  His  life  been  cruci¬ 
fied  and  buried.  But  without  the  fact  of  the 
Resurrection  you  have  no  sufficient  cause  which 
explains  Christianity.  In  spite  of  all  that  Jesus 
had  said  about  His  death  being  a  death  for  the  sin 
of  the  world,  His  death,  alone,  would  not  have 
created  faith  in  Him,  or  established  a  Christian 
Church.  An  onlooker  like  the  Roman  centurion  in 
charge  of  the  crucifixion  might  have  been  mo¬ 
mentarily  impressed  with  the  way  the  man  died, 
and  the  supernatural  signs,  such  as  the  great  dark¬ 
ness;  but  still  we  have  nothing  which  accounts  for 
the  Christian  Church.  This  is  the  more  apparent 
when  we  discover  in  the  Gospels  that  the  death  and 
burial  of  Jesus  practically  destroyed  all  faith  in 
Him  as  the  Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God.  It  did 
not  destroy  affection  for  Him;  but  it  is  plain  that 
only  that  loving  reminiscence  was  left.  The 
women  come  to  anoint  His  body  and  are  distressed 
to  find  the  body  removed  from  the  grave.  The  dis¬ 
ciples  had  hoped  that  this  'was  the  deliverer  of  Is¬ 
rael,  the  Messiah  of  God,  as  He  had  often  told  them 
He  was.  But  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  that  hope 
had  perished.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the 
establishment  of  Christianity  and  the  beginning  of 
the  Church  without  a  belief  in  the  Resurrection. 

This  is  recognized  even  by  those  who  deny 
Christianity  and  the  great  miracle  which  accounts 
for  it,  for  they  tell  us  that  although  Christ  did  not 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  117 


rise  from  the  dead,  it  was  the  belief  in  the  resur¬ 
rection  which  explains  the  establishment  of  the 
Church.  The  whole  question  then  hinges  upon  the 
subject  of  the  origin  of  the  belief :  How  did  the 
belief  arise?  Did  a  great  external  fact  create  the 
belief,  or  did  the  belief  spring  from  a  delusion, 
some  sort  of  a  misunderstanding?  Christianity 
says  the  belief  arose  through  the  Fact  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection.  Christ  has  been  crucified.  The  last  pang 
has  been  felt,  the  last  insult  received  and  the  final 
and  awful  penalty  of  sin  tasted,  the  withdrawal  of 
God’s  presence,  causing  the  cry,  “  My  God,  my 
God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?”  Nicodemus 
and  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  take  the  body  down 
from  the  Cross,  embalm  it  according  to  the  Jewish 
custom,  and  then  lay  it  away  in  the  new  and  rock- 
hewn  tomb  in  the  garden,  where  they  roll  a  great 
stone  to  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  and  depart. 
Friday  night  passes,  and  the  Sabbath.  Early  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  a  few  women  come 
through  the  lifting  mists  to  the  sepulchre,  not  to 
see  a  risen  Lord,  but  to  weep  at  His  tomb  and 
anoint  His  dead  body.  It  was  a  farewell  to  hope. 
That  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  day.  But  before 
the  day  came  to  an  end  there  was  in,  and  about 
Jerusalem,  a  company  of  men  and  women  holding 
the  belief  that  was  to  turn  the  world  upside  down 
and  turn  the  stream  of  history  into  a  new  channel. 
It  was  the  belief  that  Christ  was  risen. 

Because  they  believed  that  they  had  seen  Him, 


118  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  depressed  and  discouraged  men  who  had  been 
His  disciples  were  suddenly  changed  into  men  of 
tremendous  enthusiasm  who  go  forth  to  face  a 
world  undauntedly  and  preach  “  Jesus  and  the 
Resurrection.”  Today,  that  same  message  is 
preached  in  the  pulpits  of  the  Old  and  New  World. 
It  is  sung  to  the  gorgeous  ritual  of  the  Greek 
Catholic  Church  in  Athens,  Moscow  and  Petro- 
grad,  and  underneath  the  mighty  dome  of  St. 
Peter's  at  Rome.  The  Scottish  peasants  hear  it  in 
their  kirks  in  the  Plighlands  of  Scotland,  while 
the  sturdy  mountaineers  of  the  Waldensian  valleys 
listen  to  the  same  message.  In  the  bleak  solitudes 
of  the  Arctic  regions  the  story  of  Jesus  is  told,  and 
the  natives  of  the  South  Seas  chant  it  to  the  ac¬ 
companiment  of  ocean  waves  breaking  upon  coral 
shores.  In  darkest  Africa,  and  in  highest  Thibet, 
some  one  has  told  the  story  of  Jesus  and  His  power 
to  save.  The  whole  round  earth  has  been  girdled 
with  the  melody  of  Christian  psalms  and  hymns, 
as  the  disciples  of  Jesus  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  the  day  upon  which  they  believe  their  Lord 
rose  from  the  dead,  gather  to  honour  His  name 
and  reconsecrate  themselves  to  His  service.  The 
belief  in  the  Resurrection  created  the  Church,  es¬ 
tablished  it  in  the  world,  and  has  kept  it  in  the 
world  for  more  than  nineteen  centuries. 

ii.  the  Evidence;  eor  the  resurrection 
What,  then,  is  the  evidence  for  the  Resurrection 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  119 


as  a  Fact?  No  one  doubts  the  fact  that  the  belief 
created  the  Church.  But  does  the  belief  itself  rest 
upon  fact?  A  priori ,  that  so  beneficent  an  institu¬ 
tion  as  the  Christian  Church,  teaching  such  pure 
morality  and  holding  before  humanity  such  grand 
hopes,  has  been  created  by  belief  in  the  Resurrec¬ 
tion  is  an  indirect  witness  to  the  credibility  of  the 
fact  of  the  Resurrection,  for  it  is  difficult  to  under¬ 
stand  how  a  huge  delusion  could  have  established 
Christianity  in  the  world  and  kept  it  in  the  world 
through  all  these  centuries.  But  we  proceed  to  the 
direct  witness  to  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection. 

1.  The  Predictions  of  Jesus  Himself.  He  ex¬ 
plicitly  and  repeatedly  foretold  His  Resurrection. 
When  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  asked  for  a  sign 
of  His  right  to  make  the  extraordinary  claims  He 
was  making  for  Himself,  Jesus  said  that  as  Jonah 
was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  the 
whale,  so  the  Son  of  man  should  be  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  He  told  the 
disciples  that  He  was  to  be  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  the  Gentiles  to  be  mocked,  and  scourged,  and 
crucified,  and  that  on  the  third  day  He  would  rise 
again.  These  predictions  were  known,  not  only  to 
the  friends  of  Jesus,  who  did  not  seem  to  take  them 
seriously,  but  also  to  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  who 
paid  much  more  attention  to  them,  for  when  Jesus 
had  been  crucified  and  buried,  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  asked  Pilate  for  a  special  guard  at  the 
tomb,  saying,  “  Sir,  we  remember  that  th'at  de- 


120  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


ceiver  said,  while  He  was  yet  alive,  After  three 
days  I  will  rise  again.” 

But,  some  one  may  say,  because  Jesus  predicted 
that  He  would  rise  again  from  the  dead  is  no  proof 
that  He  did  rise,  for  that  is  a  witness  before  the 
event  and  not  after  it.  That  is  true.  But  the 
argument  is  good  to  this  extent,  that  it  proves  that 
the  Resurrection  was  in  keeping  with  the  character 
and  claims  of  Jesus,  for  if,  after  saying  so  many 
times  that  He  would  rise  from  the  dead.  He  did  not 
rise,  then,  either  Jesus  was  one  of  the  biggest  fools 
or  the  greatest  knaves  of  all  history.  He  was 
either  pitifully  ignorant  and  self-deceived,  or  a 
great  deceiver  and  impostor— that  deceiver,”  as 
the  Pharisees  called  Plim.  But  the  intellectual 
strength  and  the  moral  beauty  of  the  character  of 
Jesus,  granted  by  men  of  all  schools  of  thought, 
make  it  impossible  to  think  of  Him  as  either  a  fool 
or  a  deceiver.  I  state  this  by  way  of  preparation 
so  that  when  the  evidence  of  the  witness  of  the 
Resurrection  is  presented,  we  shall  see  how  it 
agrees  with  what  Jesus  had  said. 

2.  The  Witness  of  St.  Paul.  So  far  as  the 
records  go,  the  earliest  and  most  carefully  ar¬ 
ranged  testimony  to  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
found  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Paul’s  first  letter 
to  the  Corinthians.  He  was  nearer  to  the  time  of 
the  death  of  Jesus  than  we  are,  today,  to  the  battle 
of  Manila  Bay.  In  this  passage  Paul  sums  up  the 
Christian  message— how  Christ  died  for  our  sins 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  121 


according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  was  raised  up  the 
third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures.  He  cites 
six  different  appearances  of  Jesus  after  His  Resur¬ 
rection:  to  Peter,  to  the  Twelve,  to  five  hundred  at 
one  time,  to  James,  to  all  the  apostles,  and  last  of 
all  to  himself,  as  one  “  born  out  of  due  time.”  The 
special  appearance  which  made  Paul  believe  in  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  was  the  stupendous  trans¬ 
action  on  the  road  to  Damascus.  Yet,  when  he 
sums  up  the  evidence  for  the  Resurrection,  Paul  is 
careful  to  include  the  appearances  to  others. 

It  might  be  objected  that  this  appearance  to 
Paul  was  long  after  the  Ascension  of  Jesus,  and 
ought  not  to  be  classed  with  the  appearances  im¬ 
mediately  after  the  Resurrection.  My  answer  is 
that  the  most  logical  mind  in  the  world,  that  of 
Paul  himself,  so  classed  it.  The  encounter  on  the 
Damascan  highway  convinced  Paul  that  Jesus  was 
the  Son  of  God,  and  that  He  had  risen  from  the 
dead.  That  conviction  accounts  for  the  greatest 
moral  transformation  and  mental  change  of  which 
we  have  any  record.  There  are  plenty  of  men 
who  hate  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church  in  the 
world,  today.  They  write  against  Him,  and  speak 
against  Him,  and  work  against  Him.  But  not 
even  the  worst  of  them  hate  Him  as  bitterly  and 
intensely  as  Paul  hated  Him.  None  of  them  has 
said  as  cruel  and  false  and  wicked  things  about 
Him  as  Paul  said.  None  of  them  has  tried  to 
destroy  his  Church  with  such  desperate  energy  as 


122  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Paul  did.  Yet  it  was  this  Christ-hater,  this 
Christian-baiter,  this  Church  destroyer,  this  man 
“  breathing-  out  threatenings  and  slaughter  ” 
against  the  Christians,  who  suddenly  became  the 
greatest  and  most  influential  friend  that  Jesus 
Christ  had,  or  has  had,  upon  the  earth;  the  man 
whose  writings  compose  the  greater  part  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  man  from  whom  comes  the 
most  powerful  expression  of  Christian  doctrine, 
the  most  beautiful  description  of  the  Christian 
virtues,  and  the  man  whose  life  affords  us  the 
grandest  example  of  fellowship  with  Christ  and 
consecration  to  the  Cross  of  Christ! 

The  persecuting  Saul  of  Tarsus  changed  into 
Paul,  the  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  fact  of  his¬ 
tory.  You  must  face  it.  You  must  account  for  it. 
What  changed  him?  Paul  says  it  was  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  the  Risen  Christ.  Jesus  raised  from  the 
dead  and  appearing  to  Paul  is  a  cause  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  great  effect,  the  conversion  of  Paul. 
Anything  less  than  that  will  not  account  for  it. 
Therefore,  the  conversion  of  Paul,  and  the  great 
life  which  followed  that  conversion,  bears  witness 
to  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection. 

3.  The  Disciples  of  Jesus.  In  the  introduction 
to  the  Book  of  Acts,  Luke  says  that  after  His 
death,  Jesus  showed  Himself  alive  unto  His  dis¬ 
ciples  by  “  many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of 
them  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the  things  per¬ 
taining  to  the  kingdom  of  God.”  Our  next  step, 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  123 


then,  will  be  to  deal  with  those  appearances  and 
tell  what  the  infallible  proofs  are.  Before  I  cite 
them,  let  me  say  that  Luke,  who  thus  refers  to  the 
infallible  proofs  of  the  Resurrection,  and  else¬ 
where,  in  his  own  gospel,  gives  a  careful  history  of 
the  Resurrection,  is  recognised  as  one  of  the  world’s 
most  reliable  historians.  His  two  books  deal 
with  one  of  the  most  difficult  periods  of  history, 
when  administration  was  most  complex.  Yet  al¬ 
though  freely  mentioning  cities,  towns  and  persons, 
Luke  is  nowhere  found  to  be  in  error.  Bear  that 
in  mind,  when  we  come  to  a  statement  like  this — 
that  by  many  infallible  signs  Jesus  showed  Himself 
after  His  death  unto  the  disciples. 

No  one  doubts  that  the  four  Gospels  testify  to 
the  fact  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.  Whether 
or  not  the  authors  were  mistaken,  or  were  wilful 
deceivers,  their  narratives  tell  us  that  Christ  rose 
again.  In  these  four  accounts  there  are  minor 
differences  which  at  first  appear  to  be  discrepancies 
and  contradictions — such  differences,  in  details,  as 
these :  John  says  it  was  dark  when  the  women  came 
to  the  tomb;  but  Mark  says  the  sun  was  risen. 
Matthew  says  they  found  the  grave  closed,  and 
Mark  an  open  grave.  In  one  gospel  an  angel 
appears ;  in  another  two  angels ;  in  another  a  young 
man ;  and  in  a  fourth  two  men.  Matthew  and  John 
say  the  women  departed  in  great  joy  to  tell  the 
disciples;  but  Mark  says  they  were  so  frightened 
that  they  told  no  one. 


124.  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


While  we  may  be  perplexed  at  these  differences 
as  to  incidents  of  the  Resurrection,  we  are  grateful 
that  the  four  records  are  not  exactly  the  same  as  to 
all  details.  Had  they  so  been,  we  might  be  tempted 
to  think  there  had  been  collusion  and  fraud.  But 
if  the  Gospels  were  put  together  by  fabricators, 
why  did  they  not  see  to  it  that  their  lies  were  in 
harmony?  These  differences  in  the  narratives 
show  sincerity  and  independence  on  the  part  of  the 
narrators.  If  we  had  all  the  facts  at  hand,  the 
apparent  discrepancies  would  no  doubt  be  ex¬ 
plained.  As  it  is,  they  in  no  way  invalidate  the 
witness  of  the  Gospels,  for  the  main  thing  is  not 
whether  it  was  dark,  or  at  sunrise,  whether  There 
were  two  angels  or  just  one,  what  the  women  said 
or  did  not  say,  but  did  Christ  rise ?  Was  the  tomb 
empty?  As  to  this  the  Four  Gospels  are  in  perfect 
agreement.  In  his  Life  of  Jesus ,  Strauss,  who 
would  resolve  most  of  the  story  of  Jesus  into  myth 
or  delusion,  says,  “If  we  are  to  consider  a  miracle 
of  so  unheard  of  a  description  as  having  actually 
occurred,  it  must  be  proved  to  us  by  evidence  in 
such  a  manner,  that  the  untruth  of  such  evidence 
would  be  more  difficult  to  conceive  than  the  reality 
of  that  which  it  was  intended  to  prove.”  We  ac¬ 
cept  this  test  and  declare  that  in  view  of  what  took 
place,  in  view  of  the  establishment  of  Christianity 
in  the  world  through  a  belief  in  the  Resurrection 
of  Jesus,  and  in  view  of  the  history  and  character 
of  Jesus  as  given  in  the  Gospels,  it  would  be  far 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  125 


more  difficult  to  think  that  the  Gospels  are  false, 
than  it  is  to  believe  that  Christ  actually  rose  from 
the  dead.  Indeed,  if  Christ  was  what  the  Gospels 
present  Him  to  be,  the  Son  of  God,  and  told  the 
truth  in  His  predictions,  then  it  would  be  difficult 
to  believe  that  He  did  not  rise  from  the  dead.  That 
was  the  argument  of  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
when  he  said  it  was  not  possible  that  He  should  be 
holden  of  death. 

4.  The  Infallibility  of  the  proofs  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection  is  demonstrated  by  the  complete  failure  to 
account  for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  upon  any 
other  grounds.  All  grant  the  belief  in  the  Resur¬ 
rection  and  the  part  it  played  in  founding  the 
Church.  If  that  belief  did  not  arise  out  of  the  fact 
of  the  Resurrection,  then  it  must  have  arisen  in 
some  other  way.  But  what  way  ?  Let  us  look  now 
at  the  different  hypotheses  which  have  been  ad¬ 
vanced  to  account  for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection. 

a.  That  the  disciples  of  Jesus  stole  the  body . 
According  to  this  hypothesis  the  Resurrection  was 
a  gigantic  hoax  and  fraud.  The  grave  was  empty, 
but  because  the  disciples  had  stolen  the  body  and 
then  spread  the  rumor  that  Jesus  had  risen.  That 
was  what  the  rulers  bribed  the  Roman  guards  to 
say:  that  His  disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  the 
body.  They  had  to  account  for  the  tomb  being 
empty,  lest  the  claims  of  Jesus  be  confirmed.  The 
thing  is  too  absurd  and  preposterous  to  deserve  a 
moment’s  consideration.  It  was  a  theory  worthy 


126  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  the  men  who  first  foisted  it  on  the  world,  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees.  If  this  were  so,  you  would 
have  the  moral  phenomenon  of  Christianity  built 
on  rottenness.  The  perpetration  of  such  a  humbug 
is  not  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  moral  heroism 
and  enthusiasm  of  the  apostles.  Do  you  imagine 
Peter,  and  John,  and  the  other  disciples  suffering 
persecution  and  death  for  the  sake  of  a  Christ 
whom  they  knewT  to  be  dead,  and  about  whom  they 
were  lying? 

b.  That  Christ  was  not  dead,  but  only  in  a 
swoon.  From  time  to  time  this  foolish  idea  is 
revived.  It  is  pointed  out  that  crucified  men  some^- 
times  lived  for  several  days.  In  the  cool  grotto  of 
Joseph,  Jesus  revived  and,  escaping,  went  back  to 
the  city.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the  story  of  the 
Crucifixion.  The  soldiers  did  not  give  the  finish¬ 
ing  blow,  the  breaking  of  the  legs,  to  Jesus,  for  He 
was  already  dead,  but  one,  just  to  amuse  himself, 
took  a  spear  and  thrust  it  into  His  side.  In  the 
victim’s  weakened  state,  even  had  He  not  been  dead 
before,  that  blow  would  have  proved  mortal. 
Moreover,  Pilate,  before  he  set  the  guard,  secured 
from  the  rulers  a  death  certificate. 

But  suppose  He  had  survived  the  agony  of  the 
Cross  and  the  process  of  embalming,  how  could 
He  have  gotten  out  of  the  tomb?  How  rolled  the 
stone  away?  And  even  if  this,  in  some  way,  had 
been  done,  and  Jesus  had  found  His  way  back  to 
the  disciples  and  been  nursed  back  to  life,  can  you 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  127 


conceive  of  such  a  Christ  inspiring  His  disciples 
with  heroic  faith  and  courage  and  making  them  be¬ 
lieve  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God?  Even  Strauss 
scorned  such  a  theory :  “  It  is  impossible  that  a 
being  who  had  stolen  half -dead  out  of  the  sepul¬ 
chre,  who  had  crept  about  weak  and  ill,  want¬ 
ing  medical  treatment,  who  required  bandaging, 
strengthening,  and  indulgence,  and  who  at  last 
yielded  to  His  sufferings,  could  have  given  to 
the  disciples  the  impression  that  He  was  the  con¬ 
queror  over  death  and  the  grave,  the  Prince  of 
Eife,  an  impression  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of 
their  future  ministry.” 

c.  Hallucination.  According  to  this  theory,  the 
disciples  did  not  actually  see  Jesus  risen  from  the 
grave,  but  merely  thought  they  had  seen  Him. 
What  would  you  think  of  a  woman  who  told  you 
that  she  had  seen  her  deceased  husband  risen  from 
the  grave,  that  she  had  talked  with  him  and  eaten 
with  him?  You  would  say  that  long  hours  of 
watching  and  nursing,  loss  of  sleep  and  wearing 
grief  had  produced  in  the  woman’s  mind  an  im¬ 
pression  favourable  to  self-deception  and  hallucina¬ 
tion.  So  it  was,  we  are  told,  with  the  disciples  of 
Jesus.  Mary,  for  instance,  is  recorded  as  having 
taken  Christ  to  be  the  gardener,  while  the  more 
likely  thing  is  that  she  took  the  gardener  to  be 
Christ.  In  the  uncertain  light  of  the  early  morn 
they  were  not  sure  just  what  they  had  seen.  They 
wished  that  Jesus  were  not  dead.  They  found  it 


128  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


hard  to  believe  that  He  was  dead,  just  as  millions 
of  mourners  have  felt  as  they  stood  by  the  grave  of 
their  beloved  dead.  Their  wish  was  father  to  their 
thought — that  He  was  not  dead,  that  He  must  rise 
again.  Their  grief  created  their  dreams,  or  visions, 
and  their  visions  created  their  belief.  So  the  legend 
arose.  Grief  gave  it  wings.  So  Renan  concludes 
his  Life  of  Jesus:  “  Had  this  body  been  taken 
away,  or  did  enthusiasm,  always  credulous,  create 
afterwards  the  group  of  narratives  by  which  it  was 
sought  to  establish  faith  in  the  resurrection  ?  In  the 
absence  of  opposing  documents  this  can  never  be 
ascertained.  Let  us  say,  however,  that  the  strong 
imagination  of  Mary  Magdalene  played  an  impor¬ 
tant  part  in  this  circumstance.  Divine  power  of 
love !  Sacred  moments  in  which  the  passion  of  one 
possessed  gave  to  the  world  a  resuscitated  God !  ” 
But  suppose,  now,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Jesus  had  not  risen,  and  that  the  disciples  were  the 
victims  of  hallucination,  through  grief,  enthusiasm, 
or  whatever  you  please.  Where,  then,  is  the  body 
of  Jesus?  If  the  disciples  had  the  body  hidden 
away  somewhere,  they  could  hardly  be  deceived 
into  thinking  that  Jesus  was  risen;  and  if  the  body 
was  in  the  tomb,  or  elsewhere  in  the  custody  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  they  would  have  pro¬ 
duced  the  corpse  to  prove  that  the  disciples  who 
were  preaching  Jesus  and  the  Resurrection  were  a 
set  of  liars  and  impostors.  But  they  could  not  do 
this.  The  best  they  could  do  was  to  finance  a  lie 


DID  CHRIST  RISE  FROM  THE  DEAD?  129 


that  the  disciples  had  stolen  the  body  and  hid  it 
somewhere. 

They  found  not  the  body  of  Jesus !  That  empty 
tomb  baffles  every  theory  and  every  hypothesis 
which  would  seek  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
belief  in  the  Resurrection  upon  some  other  ground 
than  that  of  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection.  The  only 
theory  which  explains  the  empty  grave  is  the  theory 
of  the  Gospels,  the  theory  that  created  the  Church, 
that  sent  men  forth  to  meet  the  brandished  sword, 
the  leaping  flame,  “  the  lion’s  gory  mane  ” ;  the 
theory  that  changed  the  Christ-hating  and  Church- 
persecuting  Saul  into  the  great  apostle  Paul;  the 
theory  that  transfigures  the  face  of  sorrow  and 
swings  the  lantern  of  hope  in  the  darkness  of  the 
grave;  the  theory  which  alone  accounts  for  the  rise 
and  spread  of  Christianity;  the  theory  upon  the 
truth  of  which  rests  all  our  trust  for  the  forgive¬ 
ness  of  our  sins,  all  our  belief  in  fellowship  now 
with  Christ  our  Lord  and  Redeemer,  and  all  our 
hope  of  life  after  death,  our  own  personal  survival 
and  the  reunion  on  the  fields  of  eternity  with  the 
loved  and  the  lost  on  the  fields  of  time ;  the  theory 
upon  which  rest  all  the  other  truths  of  Christianity; 
the  theory  which  is  the  headstone  of  the  corner, 
holding  up  the  whole  glorious  structure  of  the 
Christian  temple;  the  theory  attested  by  many  infal¬ 
lible  proofs — that  on  the  third  day  Jesus  rose  again 
from  the  dead,  “  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power  ...  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.” 


VIII 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN? 

“So  then  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  them ,  he 
was  received  up  into  heaven ,  and  sat  on  the  right  hand 
of  God  ” — Mark  16:  19. 

THE  Christian  religion  is  indissolubly  linked 
with  four  great  miracles  or  manifestations 
of  the  Divine  power  and  will  for  the  re¬ 
demption  of  mankind.  These  four  miracles  are. 
The  Incarnation,  or  the  Son  of  God  becoming  the 
Son  of  man,  the  Resurrection,  the  Ascension  into 
heaven,  and  His  coming  again  to  judge  the  world. 
Three  of  these  belong  to  the  history  of  Christian¬ 
ity;  the  fourth  belongs  to  the  undiscovered  terri¬ 
tory  of  the  future.  It  was  a  momentous  day  for 
our  planet  when  the  Son  of  God  appeared  upon  it 
in  the  likeness  of  our  flesh.  It  was  a  great  day  for 
the  Christian  Church  when  a  cloud  received  Him 
out  of  the  sight  of  men  and  He  vanished  from  the 
earth.  It  will  again  be  a  great  day  for  the  world 
when  that  vanished  Christ  shall  come  again  in 
glory. 

There  is,  today,  an  ever  increasing  tendency  to 
dissociate  Christianity  from  its  supernatural  facts 
and  to  try  to  take  and  enjoy  its  great  principles 

130 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  131 


and  high  hopes  without  regard  to  the  truth  of  the 
alleged  facts  upon  which  it  must  stand.  But  this 
is  impossible.  A  house  must  have  foundations, 
and  if  the  foundations  be  destroyed,  the  house 
collapses.  We  have  seen  enough  of  the  history  of 
the  rejection  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity 
on  the  part  of  those  who  would,  at  the  same  time, 
take  advantage  of  the  hopes  and  principles  of 
Christianity,  to  know  that  after  men  have  rejected 
the  facts  upon  which  the  hopes  rest,  it  is  exceed¬ 
ingly  difficult  for  them  to  entertain  the  hopes.  The 
forgiveness  of  sins,  the  triumph  of  righteousness 
in  the  world  and  the  fadeless  life  beyond  the  dark 
cavern  of  the  tomb,  inevitably  sink  and  disappear 
when  the  facts  which  inspired  these  ideas  are 
abandoned. 

The  fact  that  we  have  large  groups  of  Chris¬ 
tians,  and  even  an  organized  Church  or  two,  hold¬ 
ing  to,  and  proclaiming,  these  hopes  and  laws, 
while  at  the  same  time  making  it  clear  that  they 
either  reject  altogether,  or  regard  but  lightly  the 
facts  of  Christian  history,  need  not  disturb  any¬ 
one,  for  these  groups  and  churches  are  operating 
solely  on  the  spiritual  capital  of  the  past,  and  their 
very  existence  today  in  the  world  is  wholly  depen¬ 
dent  upon  the  presence  in  the  world  of  Christian 
groups  and  churches  who  are  loyal  to  the  facts  of 
Christianity. 

We  have  now  for  our  discussion  one  of  the 
great  facts  of  Christianity,  the  Ascension  of  Jesus. 


182  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


During  the  forty  days  after  His  Resurrection 
Jesus  remained  near,  or  with,  His  disciples,  appear¬ 
ing  unto  them  now  as  they  walked  into  the  coun¬ 
try,  now  as  they  were  met  together  on  the  Lord’s 
Day,  and  now  as  they  held  to  their  nets  in  the  fish¬ 
ing  boats  of  Galilee,  as  the  mists  began  to  lift  from 
the  face  of  the  sea.  There  were  two  reasons  why 
He  tarried  this  long,  ere  He  bade  the  earth  and  His 
disciples  a  final  farewell.  First,  that  they  might 
be  convinced,  beyond  all  peradventure  of  a  doubt, 
that  He  had  actually  risen  from  the  dead.  With¬ 
out  that  conviction  as  to  a  bodily  resurrection  of 
Jesus  there  could  have  been  no  Church  and  no 
Christianity.  A  single  appearance  was  not  suf¬ 
ficient.  In  after  ages  men  might  have  said  that 
this  single  appearance  was  only  a  pathetic  imagi¬ 
nation,  or  an  inner  vision  created  by  longing 
hearts.  But  the  many  appearances,  under  many 
different  circumstances,  and  in  many  places  estab¬ 
lished  the  Resurrection  so  firmly  that,  as  Bishop 
Gore  says,  the  denial  of  it  from  the  basis  of  his¬ 
torical  criticism  is  a  “  desperate  paradox.”  If  the 
first  reason  for  this  wait  of  forty  days  was  for  the 
sake  of  evidence,  the  second  was  for  the  sake  of 
instruction.  The  ideas  of  the  gospel  of  redemption 
which  we  find  so  clearly  stated  and  so  firmly  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  teachings  of  the  apostles  and  the 
Church  after  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  are  all  found, 
in  germ  form,  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus  before  the 
crucifixion.  Nevertheless,  all  must  admit  the  dif- 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  133 


ference  between  the  plain,  full  statement  of  Chris¬ 
tian  truth  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  and  that 
which  we  have  in  the  Gospels.  When  and  where 
did  the  disciples  so  quickly  get  that  full  compre¬ 
hension  of  the  message  they  were  to  give  to  the 
world?  Through  the  promised  coming  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  undoubtedly;  but  also  through  the  in¬ 
struction  which  they  received  from  Jesus  during 
these  forty  days.  In  one  Gospel  we  are  told,  for 
instance,  that  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the 
prophets  Jesus  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  the  things  concerning  Himself.  In  the  ser¬ 
mon  which  Peter  preached  to  the  Roman  centurion 
Cornelius,  he  gives  a  very  complete  summary  of 
Christianity  as  it  was  preached  and  established  in 
the  world  by  the  apostles.  This  gospel  was,  in 
brief :  Jesus  as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  the  One 
through  whom  men  have  the  remission  of  sin,  and 
as  the  Judge  of  the  whole  earth;  and  he  adds  that 
Jesus  gave  them  this  message  about  Himself  after 
His  resurrection.  Those  forty  days,  therefore, 
were  the  days  when  Christian  theology  arose  in  its 
true  and  divine  form,  not  in  the  imagination  of 
men,  but  from  the  command  of  Jesus  Himself. 

But  when  these  ends  had  been  secured,  when  the 
faith  of  the  disciples  in  the  Resurrection  had  been 
established,  and  they  had  been  instructed  as  to  what 
they  were  to  preach,  it  was  no  longer  expedient  for 
Jesus  to  remain  upon  earth.  Indeed,  it  was  ex¬ 
pedient,  as  He  said,  that  He  should  go  away  from 


134  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


them.  Had  He  remained,  where  would  He  have 
remained?  In  Jerusalem,  Capernaum,  Athens, 
Rome?  No,  the  natural  and  the  necessary  step  is 
His  disappearance  and  ascension.  “  He  led  them 
out  as  far  as  to  Bethany,”  says  Luke;  in  Acts  he 
says  “  the  mount  called  Olivet,”  at  the  foot  of 
which  lay  Bethany.  Gethsemane  also  was  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  and  perhaps  where  our  Lord 
drank  the  bitter  cup  of  His  humiliation  and  felt 
most  keenly  the  weight  of  the  world’s  woe  and 
shame — there  He  ascended  to  the  glory  which  He 
had  forsaken  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Lifting 
His  hands  in  blessing  upon  them  He  was  taken 
from  them  and  “  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight.”  Out  of  that  cloud  He  has  never  since  ap¬ 
peared,  save  to  the  eyes  of  the  dying  Stephen,  and 
to  the  eyes  of  Paul.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  has  de¬ 
parted  from  the  earth.  His  disciples  will  see  Him 
no  more.  But,  now,  instead  of  the  sorrow  and 
dismay  with  which  they  followed  Him  to  the 
tomb  in  the  dark  eclipse  of  all  their  hopes,  they 
return  to  the  city  with  great  joy,  there  to  wait  for 
the  equipment  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I.  HEAVEN  IS  A  PEACE  AS  WELE  AS  A  STATE 

What  is  related  here  in  the  Gospels  and  in  Acts 
is  everywhere  assumed  and  stated  in  the  teaching 
and  writings  of  the  apostles.  The  most  familiar 
statement  of  the  Ascension  of  Jesus  is  that  He 
ascended  to  the  right  hand  of  God.  Of  course. 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  135 


God,  being  a  Spirit,  has  neither  right  hand  nor  left 
hand,  and  such  expressions  are  used  in  the  Bible, 
only  to  help  us  hold  to  the  fact,  or  truth,  which  is 
thus  symbolised.  Yet  when  Jesus  disappeared  it 
was  a  real  disappearance,  a  real  exit  from  this 
world,  a  real  entrance  into  another  world.  Since 
the  men  of  that  day  thought  of  heaven  as  some 
place  over  their  heads,  there  is  no  reason  why 
Jesus,  in  the  act  of  His  ascension,  should  not  have 
accommodated  Himself  to  their  supposition  and 
given  them  a  manifestation  of  a  body  rising  from 
the  earth.  Indeed,  unless  there  had  been  some 
such  real  manifestation,  it  is  difficult  to  under¬ 
stand  how  they  could  have  become  convinced,  as 
they  were  convinced,  that  the  occasional  appear¬ 
ances  of  Jesus  were  at  an  end,  and  that  a  new 
chapter  had  opened  for  them. 

It  is  idle  to  say,  and  with  boasting,  that  heaven 
is  no  more  above  our  heads  than  it  is  under  our 
feet,  and  that  the  idea  of  an  ascension,  while  easy 
for  men  who  had  the  static  and  mechanical  thought 
of  the  heavens,  is  impossible  for  us  who  know  that 
what  we  point  to  tonight  among  the  shining  stars 
tomorrow  will  be  under  our  feet.  What  the  as¬ 
cension  tells  us  is  that  Jesus  passed  from  the  visible 
world  into  the  invisible  and  spiritual  world,  which 
is  the  abiding  world. 

Where  did  Jesus  go?  Whither  did  He  ascend? 
To  heaven?  But  what  and  where  is  heaven?  Al¬ 
most  half  a  century  ago  there  appeared  a  book 


136  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


entitled  The  Unseen  Universe ,  the  result  of  the 
collaboration  of  two  very  distinguished  physicists, 
who  happened  to  be  men  of  Christian  faith  as  well. 
The  chief  idea  running  through  the  book  is  that 
the  visible  and  material  world,  which  we  are 
tempted  to  regard  as  being  the  only  universe,  is 
only  a  temporary  thing,  the  temporary  staging  and 
expression  of  the  original  and  immaterial  and  in¬ 
visible  universe.  Both  science  and  prophecy  seem 
to  point  to  the  dissolution  and  disappearance  of  this 
present  material  universe,  when,  in  the  eloquent 
language  of  Isaiah,  “  All  the  host  of  heaven  shall 
be  dissolved,  and  the  heavens  shall  be  rolled  to¬ 
gether  as  a  scroll,”  when 

“  The  cloud-capped  towers,  the  gorgeous  palaces, 

The  solemn  temples,  the  great  globe  itself, 

Yea,  all  which  it  inherit,  shall  dissolve;- — 

And  like  this  unsubstantial  pageant,  faded, 

Leave  not  a  wrack  behind.” 

After  all,  how  little  we  know  about  the  universe 
which  lies  within  our  ken  and  observation,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  world  beyond,  and  that  little  knowl¬ 
edge  will  certainly  not  lead  us  to  conclude  that  this 
is  the  only  universe.  What  lies  beyond  those  stars 
that  will  shine  down  tonight?  Wing  your  way 
from  star  to  star,  stand  at  length  on  the  remotest 
verge  of  the  physical  universe,  what  can  you  tell 
me  of  that  which  lies  beyond  it  or  around  it  ?  The 
Scriptures  do  not  locate  or  describe  heaven,  but 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  137 


when  Jesus  ascended  into  heaven  to  the  right  hand 
of  God  He  passed  through  into  a  world  that  is 
just  as  real  as  the  world  in  which  we  live  today. 

II.  CHRIST  AS  OUR  INTERCESSOR 

The  chief  lessons  of  the  Ascension  are  not 
those  of  celestial  geography  or  topography,  but 
of  spiritual  and  Christian  significance.  In  that  in¬ 
visible  world  to  which  Christ  has  gone  the  great 
office  of  our  Cord  is  that  of  an  intercessor  with 
God  for  all  who  in  this  life  believe  on  Him.  Even 
before  His  death,  Jesus  interceded  with  God  for 
the  souls  of  men.  He  said  He  had  prayed  for  His 
disciples,  and  especially  for  Peter,  on  that  last 
night,  that  his  faith  might  not  fail  him;  and  for 
all  the  Twelve,  for  all  Christian  believers,  past, 
present,  and  to  come,  Jesus  prayed  in  the  sublime 
intercession  at  the  Last  Supper.  In  the  subsequent 
literature  of  the  New  Testament  this  act  of  inter¬ 
cession  appears  as  the  present  work  of  Christ. 
When  He  died  on  Calvary  He  cried  out  to  heaven 
and  earth  and  hell,  It  is  finished!  It  was  finished, 
the  great  act  of  sacrifice  and  redemption,  and  all 
else  in  the  future  is  but  the  application,  or  working 
out,  of  what  was  done  once  for  all  on  the  Cross. 
The  work  of  Christ  as  an  Intercessor  is  not  a  new 
work  of  redemption,  but  His  presenting  Himself  to 
God  as  our  Redeemer  and  thereby  “  modifying  the 
incidence  ”  of  the  Divine  law  towards  us.  “  Who 
is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 


138  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


intercession  for  us.”  (Romans  8:34.)  “  He  is  also 
able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that  come  unto 
God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  inter¬ 
cession  for  them.”  (Hebrews  7 :  25.)  As  once  in  the 
year,  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  the  high  priest 
of  Israel,  clad  in  white  garments,  and  with  tinkling 
bell  and  the  blood  of  sacrifice,  passed  within  the 
veil  to  make  intercession  for  the  people,  remaining 
there  but  a  little,  Christ,  our  great  High  Priest,  has 
passed  into  the  heavens,  within  the  veil,  where  in 
the  very  holy  of  holies,  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
Himself,  He  maketh  intercession  for  His  people. 
But  does  God  the  Father  need  to  be  won  or  wooed 
to  mercy  and  benevolence  by  prayers  and  offerings  ? 
No;  the  intercession  of  Jesus  is  but  the  demonstra¬ 
tion  and  proclamation,  in  heaven,  of  that  ground 
upon  which  God  forgives  sin,  and  restores  man  to 
the  household  of  His  love. 

Every  man  who  is  a  confessed  follower  of  Jesus 
Christ  has  in  his  behalf  the  mighty  intercession  of 
Jesus  with  God.  In  quiet,  twilight  hours  our 
hearts  go  yearningly  out  in  the  direction  of  the 
invisible  world,  whither  our  beloved  departed  have 
entered,  and,  sometimes,  we  wonder  how  near  they 
are  to  us,  or  what  offices  they  may  perform  in  our 
behalf.  Do  they  hold  us  in  full  survey  and  com¬ 
pass  us  about  as  a  cloud  of  witnesses?  Do  they 
rejoice  when  they  behold  us  saying  to  temptation, 
“  Get  thee  behind  me  ”  ?  And  do  they  know  sad¬ 
ness  and  dismay  and  fear  when  they  behold  us,  in 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  139 

spite  of  their  prayers  and  whatever  interventions 
are  granted  unto  them,  forsake  the  good  and  choose 
death  rather  than  life?  Perhaps  so.  We  like  to 
think  so.  What  we  do  know  is  that  One  who 
knows  us  better  than  our  nearest  and  our  dearest — 
One  who  was  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are, 
yet  without  sin,  One  who  is  touched  with  a  feel¬ 
ing  of  our  daily  and  hourly  infirmities,  Jesus  the 
Creator  of  the  world,  Who  died  on  the  Cross,  Who 
rose  again  the  third  day,  Who  ascended  into 
heaven  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father  Almighty — prays  for  us.  Oh,  if  the  recol¬ 
lection  that  some  wife  or  little  child,  or  blessed 
mother  or  father,  or  true  friend,  now  prays  for  us 
that  we  may  be  kept  from  the  evil  way,  or  that  our 
faith  may  not  fail  us,  and  if  the  recollection  of  the 
prayers  that  we,  ourselves,  out  of  a  pure  heart  once 
offered  unto  God  for  ourselves — if  the  thought  of 
these  intercessions  helps  and  strengthens  and  puri¬ 
fies,  so  that  hearts  are  brave  again  and  arms  are 
strong,  how  much  more  will  it  help  us  to  remember 
that  Christ  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us ! 

III.  THE  HEAVENLY  POSSIBILITIES  OE  HUMAN 

NATURE 

Jesus  came  down  from  heaven  as  the  Eternal 
Son  of  the  Father,  but  when  He  went  back  to  the 
seat  of  honour  and  of  glory  at  God's  right  hand, 
He  took  with  Him  our  own  nature.  He  returned 
to  His  Father  as  God-man.  That  human  nature 


140  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


which  He  assumed  in  Bethlehem’s  cradle  He  never 
relinquished  or  laid  aside.  In  that  nature  He  met 
the  assaults  of  the  Tempter  in  the  desert;  in  that 
nature,  in  busy  highway  or  green  hillside  or  by  the 
unsleeping  sea,  He  spake  the  message  of  the  King¬ 
dom;  in  that  nature  He  drank  Gethsemane’s  cup 
and  entered  into  the  darkness  of  death  on  Calvary ; 
in  that  nature  He  rose  again  and  appeared  unto  His 
disciples ;  and  in  that  same  body,  no  longer  now  the 
body  of  humiliation,  but  the  body  of  His  glory,  He 
ascended  into  the  heavens.  Forever  God  and  Man, 
He  reigns  in  heaven.  It  was  our  nature,  in  every¬ 
thing  but  its  sin,  that  sat  down  at  the  right  hand 
of  God. 

In  the  ascended  humanity  of  Jesus  we  behold 
our  destiny,  the  true  destiny  of  man.  In  our 
present  weakness,  and  ignorance,  and  frailty,  it 
seems  too  grand  a  destiny,  an  end  and  consumma¬ 
tion  impossible  for  us.  But  the  same  power  that 
raised  and  exalted  Him,  will  raise  and  exalt  us  too, 
for  He  shall  “  change  our  vile  body  that  it  may  be 
fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to 
the  working  whereby  he  is  able  ever  to  subdue  all 
things  unto  himself.”  “  Man  is  but  a  reed,  the 
frailest  thing  in  nature.  An  exhalation,  a  drop  of 
water,  suffices  to  destroy  him.”  Yet  for  Him  there 
is  the  seat  of  glory.  “  What  is  man  that  thou  art 
mindful  of  him?  and  the  son  of  man  that  thou 
visitest  him?  For  thou  hast  made  him  a  little 
lower  than  the  angels.”  In  that  state  of  glory  in 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  141 


the  life  to  come  redeemed  man  will  be  a  little 
higher  than  the  angels,  how  much  higher  than  the 
angels  none  can  tell,  but  certainly  higher,  for 
every  redeemed  being  who  has  passed  through  the 
l  furnace  of  the  sins  and  trials  of  this  world  and 
been  found  by  Christ,  must  be  higher  than  an  un- 
'  fallen  being. 

When  the  weariness  of  gathering  years  creeps 
upon  you,  or  the  fatigue  of  sickness  and  disease, 
or  a  thick,  cold  fog  of  loneliness,  or  when  present 
temptations  assail  you,  or  the  memory  of  past  sins 
burns  you  like  an  acid  flame,  then  lift  up  your  eyes 
unto  the  heavens,  and  see  what  man  was  made  for 
and  what  man  is  capable  of,  and  live  for  that  chief 
end  of  man’s  life. 

iv.  the:  victory  or  the  church  and  the 
reign  oe  righteousness 

The  suffering,  humiliated,  and  rejected  Christ  is 
now  the  exalted  and  glorified  Christ.  He  is  at  the 
right  hand  of  power.  The  pierced  hand  rules  the 
world.  We  look  about  us,  today,  and  see  little 
evidence  of  the  triumph  of  Christ  and  His  Church. 
We  behold  a  Church  distressed  with  Christ-denying 
heresies  and  rent  with  wide  and  bitter  schisms. 
We  behold  a  world  to  which  Christ  gave  His  law 
of  love  and  justice — peace  on  earth  and  good  will 
to  men — torn  asunder  with  a  legion  of  devils  of 
greed,  and  lust,  and  hate,  and  violence,  and  the 
cloud  about  His  throne  is  denser  and  colder  by  far 


142  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


than  that  which  one  day  on  Olivet’s  slopes  received 
Him  out  of  His  disciples’  sight.  Where  are  the 
signs  of  His  coming?  Where  are  the  conquests 
of  His  empire? 

“  Our  Lord  is  still  rejected 

And  by  this  world  disowned; 

By  the  many  still  neglected 
And  by  the  few  enthroned.” 

But  this  rejected  Christ  holds  the  helm  of  the 
universe  as  He  sits  at  God’s  right  hand.  When 
He  ascended  on  high,  He  took  captivity  captive. 
All  those  forces,  and  powers,  and  persons,  which 
by  their  successful  stratagems  had  held  men  in 
captivity,  and  which  appear  to  hold  men  in  cap¬ 
tivity  now,  in  reality  have  had  their  spoils  wrested 
from  them,  and  themselves  have  been  made  cap¬ 
tive.  The  walls  of  the  fortress  of  Satan  have  been 
sapped  and  its  foundations  undermined;  they  wait 
only  for  the  touch  of  the  Captain  of  our  Salvation 
to  bring  them  down  in  ruins.  In  T he  Four  Horse¬ 
men  of  the  Apocalypse,  the  Russian  sage  and 
prophet,  looking  upon  the  ravages  of  war,  despairs 
of  the  death  of  the  Beast.  The  Beast,  he  says, 
never  dies.  He  is  the  eternal  companion  of  man. 
He  hides  spouting  blood  for  fifty  or  a  hundred 
years,  but  eventually  he  reappears.  But  Christian¬ 
ity  has  a  different  horoscope  for  the  world.  The 
Beast  has  received  his  fatal  wound.  Both  Death 
and  Hell  will  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  Christ 
must  reign  till  He  hath  put  all  enemies  under  His 


DID  CHRIST  ASCEND  INTO  HEAVEN?  143 


feet.  “Affairs  on  this  earth  may  not  proceed  in 
a  train  agreeable  to  our  views  and  expectations; 
but  it  will  repress  every  murmur  and  every 
wish  for  a  different  order  to  reflect  that  He  pre¬ 
sides  over  them,  who  is  the  Patron  of  truth  and 
righteousness.” 

When  Julian  the  Apostate,  who  sought  to  light 
again  the  fires  on  the  altars  of  the  pagan  gods,  and 
destroy  Christianity,  was  on  the  march  with  his 
army  in  the  campaign  against  Persia,  in  the  year 
363,  one  of  the  soldiers  of  his  army  said  to  a 
Christian  who  was  being  abused  by  the  soldiery, 
“  Where  is  your  carpenter  now?  ”  “  He  is  making 
a  coffin  for  your  emperor,”  was  the  reply  of  the 
Christian.  A  few  months  afterwards,  Julian  re¬ 
ceived  a  mortal  wound  in  battle.  The  rumor 
spread  through  the  army  that  the  wound  was  in¬ 
flicted  by  a  Christian  soldier  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Roman  army,  and  according  to  the  story  of  Theo- 
deret,  Julian,  realising  that  his  death  was  at  hand, 
dipped  his  hand  in  the  blood  of  his  wound  and 
threw  the  blood  towards  heaven,  exclaiming  as  he 
did  so,  “  Thou  hast  conquered,  O  Galilaean !  ” 
Yes,  the  Carpenter  of  Nazareth,  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  God,  is  making  a  coffin  for  all  the 
kings  and  kingdoms  of  this  world.  One  by  one 
they  flourish,  and  are  gone.  But  Christ’s  is  an 
everlasting  kingdom.  All  that  is  not  obedient  to 
Him,  and  subject  to  Him,  shall  perish.  That  alone 
endures  which  belongs  to  Him. 


IX 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 

“  Till  he  come.” — i  Cor.  11:26. 

THE  last  that  “  the  world  ”  saw  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  when  He  hung  dead  upon  the 
Cross  at  Calvary.  But  His  disciples  de¬ 
clared  that  the  dead  Jesus  rose  from  the  grave  and 
appeared  unto  them,  during  a  period  of  forty  days 
showing  Himself  alive  by  many  infallible  proofs. 
At  the  end  of  that  time  He  ascended  into  heaven 
and  a  cloud  received  Him  out  of  their  sight.  But, 
instead  of  grieving  and  despairing  because  they 
saw  Him  no  more,  the  disciples  returned  to  Jerusa¬ 
lem  with  great  joy  and  were  continually  in  the 
temple  praising  God.  What  was  the  secret  of  that 
joy?  How  strange  that  these  disciples  should  re¬ 
joice  when  their  Lord  is  taken  from  them!  The 
secret  of  their  joy  was  that  they  expected  Him  to 
return.  Before  His  death,  and  perhaps  between 
His  resurrection  and  His  ascension,  Jesus  had  in¬ 
structed  the  disciples  as  to  His  return  to  the  earth. 
Still,  it  is  one  thing  to  receive  instruction,  another 
thing  to  act  upon  it.  They  were  gazing  stead¬ 
fastly  up  into  heaven,  thinking  we  hardly  know 
what,  as  they  looked  upon  the  cloud  which  had 

144 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


14-5 


received  their  Lord  out  of  their  sight,  when  two 
men  apparelled  in  white  stood  by  them  and  said, 
“  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand  ye  gazing  up  into 
heaven?  this  same  Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  from 
you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as 
ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven.”  God  knows 
when  to  speak  to  His  children  and  what  to  speak. 
His  angels  come  when  our  hearts  need  to  hear  their 
message.  With  that  great  assurance  ringing  in 
their  ears,  the  disciples  returned  to  Jerusalem  filled 
with  joy  and  hope.  In  a  few  days  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  poured  out  upon  them,  and  the  Christian 
Church  commenced  its  work  in  the  world. 

w 

The  promise  that  our  Lord  will  come  again 
occupies  such  a  place  in  Christian  revelation  that 
to  ask  the  question,  Will  Christ  come  again  ? 
amounts  to  saying,  Is  the  New  Testament  reliable? 
or,  Is  Christianity  true?  If  Christ  is  not  coming 
again,  then  a  negative  answer  must  be  given  to 
both  these  questions.  As  Canon  Liddon,  one  of 
the  greatest  preachers  of  his  time,  once  put  it  when 
preaching  in  St.  Paul’s:  “  If  Christ  is  not  coming 
back  in  glory,  then  let  us  turn  the  key  in  the  west 
door  of  this  cathedral.”  Paul  said  that  if  Christ 
were  not  risen,  the  preaching  of  Christianity  was 
foolishness.  So  we  may  say  that  if  Christ  is  not 
coming  again  in  glory,  it  is  folly  to  preach  Chris¬ 
tianity,  because  we  are  preaching  what  is  not  true. 

In  popular  speech  this  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament  is  referred  to  as  the  "  second  ”  coming 


146  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  Christ,  and  the  word  “  second  ”  is  used  to  differ¬ 
entiate  between  the  coming  of  Christ  in  glory  and 
His  coming  in  humility  when  He  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  at  Bethlehem.  But  the  Bible  nowhere 
speaks  of  a  “  second  coming.”  There,  it  is  always 
the  “  coming,”  or  the  “  presence  ”  of  the  Lord. 
The  event  was  of  so  great  significance  that  it  stood 
by  itself  in  meaning  and  in  glory.  In  this  day, 
when  so  many  Christians  appear  never  to  have 
heard  of  the  doctrine,  or  who,  if  they  have,  regard 
it  as  something  which  has  no  meaning  for  their 
everyday  life,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  say  that 
the  belief  in  the  Coming  of  the  Lord  is  presented 
to  us  in  the  sacraments,  the  offices,  the  prayers  and 
the  creeds  of  the  holy,  catholic  Church.  In  the 
Lord’s  Prayer  when  we  say  “  Thy  Kingdom 
come,”  it  is  the  coming  of  the  Lord  for  which  we 
pray.  In  the  Apostles’  Creed  we  confess  that  He 
will  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  Never 
a  Christian  man  is  buried  but  the  minister  refers 
in  the  committal  service  to  the  coming  of  Christ, 
for  he  says,  “  Earth  to  earth,  ashes  to  ashes,  dust 
to  dust.  Looking  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  at  whose  appearing  in  glorious 
majesty,  the  earth  and  the  sea  shall  give  up  their 
dead,  and  the  mortal  bodies  of  them  that  sleep  in 
Him  shall  be  changed  and  made  like  to  His  own 
glorious  body.”  And  never  a  celebration  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  is  held  but  the  officiating  minister, 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


147 


or  priest,  gives  the  bread  and  the  wine  to  the  people, 
repeating  as  he  does  so  the  words  of  Paul :  “  For  as 
oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  ye  do 
show  forth  the  Ford’s  death  till  he  come  ”  All  our 
worship,  all  our  working,  all  our  praying,  looks 
forward  to  that  great  day  when  He  shall  come. 

Because  it  is  an  event  which  belongs  to  the 
future,  thus  being  in  contrast  with  the  other  three 
great  miracles  of  Christianity,  the  Incarnation,  the 
Resurrection  and  the  Ascension,  which  all  belong 
to  the  past,  to  history,  the  belief  in  the  Coming  of 
the  Lord  has  suffered  much  at  the  hands  of  en¬ 
thusiasts,  with  the  result  that  it  has  been  given  a 
place  which  the  Scriptures  do  not  give  to  it,  to  the 
end  that  many,  offended  with  these  extravagances, 
have  turned  from  it  altogether.  But  the  abuse  of 
the  doctrine  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  total  neglect 
of  it  on  the  other,  is  no  reason  why  Christian  be¬ 
lievers  should  not  be  instructed  concerning  it,  and 
receive  comfort  and  inspiration  from  it. 

It  would  be  a  tragedy  if  in  this  day,  when  ration¬ 
alism  and  modernism  are  taking  the  mask  from 
their  faces  and  revealing  themselves  as  the  enemies 
of  our  Lord,  His  disciples  should  fall  to  quarreling 
among  themselves  as  to  the  time,  and  the  order  of 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord,  instead  of  marching 
shoulder  to  shoulder  against  the  common  foe.  The 
menace  of  unbelief  ought  to  unite  in  one  grand 
army  believing  men  and  women  of  all  denomi¬ 
nations  and  all  Christian  Churches.  I  will  there- 


148  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


fore  purposely  avoid  those  subjects  in  connection 
with  the  Coming  of  Christ  about  which  contentions 
have  arisen,  and  over  which  Christian  people  have 
divided  themselves  according  to  their  favourite 
interpretation,  and  deal  with  those  truths  of  the 
Coming  of  our  Lord  about  which  all  Christians  are 
in  agreement.  That  great  agreement  as  to  the 
cardinal  facts  is  far  more  significant  than  any  dis¬ 
agreement  as  to  minor  facts,  such  as  the  place  that 
a  millenium  takes  in  the  Coming  of  the  Lord,  or 
whether  the  final  kingdom  of  peace  and  beauty  is 
to  be  here  on  this  earth  or  elsewhere.  What  I  shall 
try  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  state  the  reasons  for  the 
belief  in  the  Coming  of  the  Lord,  and  show  why  it 
is  that  for  long  centuries  the  Christian  Church  has 
confessed  together,  “  From  thence  He  shall  come 
to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.” 

I.  WE  BELIEVE  CHRIST  WILL  COME  AGAIN 
BECAUSE  CHRIST  SAID  SO 

If  a  true  Christian  is  convinced  that  Jesus  said 
He  would  come  again,  that  is  sufficient  for  him. 
He  needs  no  further  evidence.  The  moral  author¬ 
ity  and  infallibility  of  Jesus  is  involved  in  this 
question  as  to  His  return  to  judge  the  quick  and 
the  dead.  To  see  how  repeatedly  and  unmistakably 
Jesus  declared  that  He  would  come  again,  all  that 
is  necessary  is  to  take  the  Four  Gospels  and  read 
through  them.  Christ  there  says  that  He  will  come 
again  in  glory  with  His  angels.  This  Coming  will 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


149 


be  visible  to  all,  like  lightning  coming  out  of  the 
east  and  shining  to  the  west.  In  terms  of  tre¬ 
mendous  imagery,  an  extinguished  sun,  a  dimmed 
moon,  stars  falling  from  heaven,  the  powers  of 
heaven  and  earth  shaken,  the  whole  universe  in 
convulsion,  He  describes  the  conditions  which  shall 
exist  when  the  Son  of  man  cometh.  Yet  He  also 
says  the  time  of  His  coming  is  unpredictable  and 
unexpected.  It  will  overtake  humanity  as  the 
deluge  in  the  days  of  Noah  and  as  a  thief  in  the 
night.  At  such  an  hour  as  men  think  not,  He  will 
come.  In  His  great  prophetic  discourse,  as  re¬ 
corded  in  the  last  part  of  Matthew’s  Gospel,  He 
foretells  also  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
great  tribulation  which  would  overtake  the  Jews 
at  that  time.  But  there  is  also  in  His  mind  a 
greater  calamity  and  judgment,  and  those  near 
events  of  God’s  judgments  are  but  the  faint  rumb¬ 
lings  of  the  storm  which  is  to  come. 

The  great  parables,  such  as  The  Wise  and  Fool¬ 
ish  Virgins,  The  Talents,  The  Husbandmen  who 
slew  the  Heir  of  the  Lord  of  the  Vineyard,  and 
The  Pounds,  however  rich  and  imaginative  the 
homiletic  lessons  which  preachers  draw  from  them, 
all  have  for  their  one  great  lesson,  the  unex¬ 
pectedness,  the  suddenness,  the  blessings  and  the 
judgments  of  Christ’s  coming  again.  In  His  last, 
tender  address  to  His  disciples,  Jesus  comforted 
them  with  the  promise  of  the  coming  of  the  Com¬ 
forter,  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  beyond  that  was  the 


150  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


definite  assurance  that  He  would  come  again  and 
receive  them  unto  Himself.  After  His  resurrec¬ 
tion,  when  Peter  wanted  to  know  what  was  to  be 
the  fate  of  John,  Jesus  told  him  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  follow  his  Lord  regardless  of  what  hap¬ 
pened  to  John;  “  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
what  is  that  to  thee?  Follow  thou  me.” 

If  we  can  be  sure  of  anything  about  Jesus,  we 
can  be  sure  that  He  said  Pie  would  come  again  to 
this  earth,  visibly,  in  glory,  accompanied  by  the 
heavenly  beings,  and  at  a  time  of  terrible  distress 
and  suffering  among  men  and  nations.  If  Christ 
is  not  coming  again,  then  His  moral  authority  is 
destroyed  and  we  cannot  worship  Him  as  God. 
The  theory  that  this  apocalyptic  teaching  was 
added  by  some  of  the  Christian  disciples  who  had 
been  accustomed  to  that  sort  of  literature  among 
the  Jews,  is  not  satisfactory.  Just  as  there  is  no 
such  person  as  a  Jesus  who  was  not  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  who  did  not  work  miracles,  so 
there  is  no  such  person  as  a  Jesus  who  did  not 
declare,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that  He  would 
come  again. 

II.  WE  BEEIEVE  THAT  CHRIST  WITH  COME  AGAIN 
BECAUSE  HIS  APOSTEES  SAID  THAT  HE 
WOUED  COME 

Luke  commences  his  history  of  the  Christian 
Church  by  reporting  what  the  angels  said  to  the 
disciples  at  the  Ascension,  that  Jesus  would  come 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


151 


in  like  manner  as  they  had  seen  Him  go.  The  echo 
of  that  promise  is  heard  in  every  sermon  preached 
by  the  apostles.  They  are  men  whose  backs  are  to 
the  world  and  whose  faces  are  turned  towards  the 
Coming  of  the  Lord.  Because  He  is  coming,  they 
are  encouraged  to  endure  persecution  and  afflic¬ 
tion;  because  He  is  coming,  they  are  enjoined  to 
live  godly,  sober  and  righteous  lives;  and  because 
He  is  coming,  and  will  bring  the  Christian  dead 
with  Him,  they  are  bidden  to  comfort  their  broken 
hearts  in  time  of  sorrow  and  bereavement.  One 
has  counted  as  many  as  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  declare,  or 

0  ^  _ 

reflect,  the  hope  of  the  Coming  of  the  Lord.  If 
you  were  to  take  your  New  Testament  and  blot 
out  all  the  passages  which  tell  of  the  Coming  of 
the  Lord,  you  would  have  left  in  your  hands  a 
strange-looking  book.  It  would  be  so  filled  with 
lacunae  as  to  be  practically  unintelligible.  To  the 
most  careless  reader  of  the  New  Testament  it  is 
evident  that  the  driving  power  of  the  apostolic 
Church  was  the  belief  held  by  those  who  formed  it 
that  Christ  was  coming  back  to  earth,  and  the  hope 
that  He  was  coming  in  their  own  day,  before  they 
died.  Give  to  the  apostles  and  the  Christian  be¬ 
lievers  the  hope  of  the  appearing  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  you  can  account  for  their  incomparable 
labours  and  their  flaming  love,  and  their  mighty 
achievement.  Deny  that  they  had  that  belief,  and 
you  have  no  explanation  of  what  they  endured  and 


152  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


what  they  accomplished.  Still  further,  to  say  that 
they  did  have  the  belief,  but  that  they  were  mis¬ 
taken,  and  that  Christ  will  never  come,  is  to  say 
that  the  Christian  religion,  with  all  its  conquests 
and  all  its  beneficent  influences,  is  to  be  traced  back 
to  a  colossal  delusion. 

III.  WE  BELIEVE  THAT  CHRIST  WIEE  COME  AGAIN 
BECAUSE  WE  BELIEVE  IN  THE  REIGN  OE 
RIGHTEOUSNESS 

Both  common  sense  and  experience  forbid  us  to 
think  that  the  reign  of  righteousness,  the  rule  of 
God  upon  earth,  will  ever  be  established  except 
through  the  Coming  of  Christ.  Before  stating  the 
reasons  for  this,  it  will  help  us  in  our  thought  of 
the  Coming  of  the  Lord  if  we  summarize  in  a  few 
sentences  what  the  New  Testament  teaches  us 
about  the  concomitants  of  the  great  event,  the 
things  which  shall  take  place,  before,  at  the  time, 
and  after  the  Advent  of  Christ. 

Without  entering  upon  any  disputed  territory, 
we  may  say  that  most  Christians  believe  that  before 
Christ  comes  the  world  must  be  evangelised.  This 
Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the 
world  for  a  witness  unto  all  nations :  and  then  shall 
the  end  come.  Either  before  or  after  the  Coming 
of  Christ  the  Jews  will  accept  Christ  as  the  Mes¬ 
siah  and,  as  Paul  said,  all  Israel  shall  be  saved. 
Before  He  comes  there  shall  be  wars  and  rumors 
of  war,  with  convulsions  in  both  the  political  and 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


153 


the  physical  world.  Then  comes  a  period  of  tribu¬ 
lation  when  Christ’s  people  shall  be  persecuted, 
when  false  prophets  shall  lead  men  astray,  and  the 
love  of  many  shall  wax  cold.  During  that  time 
there  shall  be  many  false  rumors  that  Christ  is 
come,  and  false  prophets  shall  work  great  signs  and 
wonders  and  shall  say,  “  To,  here  is  the  Christ.” 
This  fearful  period  God  in  His  mercy  shall 
shorten.  Then,  with  fearful  signs  in  heaven  and 
on  earth,  with  distress  on  land  and  on  sea,  the  Son 
of  Man  shall  come  in  glory.  To  this  picture  of 
Christ,  Paul  adds  the  information  about  a  great 
apostasy  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  mani¬ 
festation  of  Antichrist,  or  the  Man  of  Sin.  The 
endless  speculations  as  to  Antichrist  have  only 
darkened  counsel  without  knowledge.  But  it  is 
clear  from  both  the  words  of  Jesus  and  of  Paul 
that  that  evil  is  to  come  to  a  fearful  climax  in 
some  person,  or  institution,  which  will  arrogate  to 
itself  power  and  worship.  This  power  of  wicked¬ 
ness  Christ  shall  destroy  at  His  coming. 

At  the  return  of  our  Lord  the  dead  are  to  be 
raised  up.  All  that  are  in  the  grave  shall  hear  His 
voice.  Christianity  foretells,  not  merely  the  sur¬ 
vival  of  the  human  spirit,  but  the  resurrection  and 
the  transformation  of  the  body.  But  that  final 
state  is  not  possible  until  Christ  comes  again,  for 
it  is  at  His  coming  that  the  dead  shall  be  raised  up. 
Hence  the  great  emphasis  which  the  apostles  place 
on  the  Coming  of  the  Lord  as  a  doctrine  of  com- 


154  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

fort  for  the  sorrowing.  “  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.  But  every  man  in 
his  own  order:  Christ  the  first  fruits;  afterward 
they  that  are  Christ’s  at  his  coming.”  “  The  Lord 
himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout, 
with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump 
of  God,  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.” 

After  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  comes  the 
great  scene  of  judgment.  The  small  and  the  great 
stand  before  God.  In  Christ’s  picture  of  the  judg¬ 
ment  all  nations  are  gathered  before  Him  and  given 
their  final  destiny,  some  to  everlasting  punishment, 
and  some  to  everlasting  joy  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
This  world  and  the  order  of  this  world  comes  to 
an  end.  “  Then  cometh  the  end  when  he  shall 
deliver  up  the  Kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all.”  There  will  be  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth.  In  this  new  heaven  and 
new  earth  sin,  and  war,  and  lust,  and  hate,  and 
strife,  and  sorrow,  and  pain,  and  death  will  not 
exist.  “  There  shall  be  no  more  curse ;  but  the 
throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  in  it;  and 
his  servants  shall  serve  him;  and  they  shall  see  his 
face;  and  his  name  shall  be  in  their  foreheads. 
And  there  shall  be  no  night  there;  and  they  need 
no  candle  neither  light  of  the  sun!  for  the  Lord 
God  giveth  them  light;  and  they  shall  reign  for 
ever  and  ever.”  Is  it  to  be  a  kingdom  of  beauty 
and  glory  on  some  other  sphere?  Or  is  it  to  be 
established  here  upon  this  earth?  Men  differ  as 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


155 


to  the  place;  but  there  is  perfect  agreement  as  to 
the  state  of  this  Kingdom  of  God,  this  great  and 
glorious  end,  when  God  shall  be  all  and  in  all. 

The  important  thing  to  keep  in  mind  is  the  end, 
that  state  of  perfection  which  the  Bible  pictures  as 
established  after  the  Coming  of  the  Lord.  The 
hope  which  beats  within  the  breast  of  man  has  ever 
pictured  a  great  and  a  good  end  to  the  long  process 
of  history. 


“  There  is  something  here 
Unfathomed  by  the  cynic’s  sneer; 

Something  that  gives  our  feeble  light 
A  high  immunity  from  Night. 

“  A  conscience  more  divine  than  we, 

A  gladness  fed  on  secret  tears; 

A  vexing,  forward  reaching  sense 
Of  some  more  noble  permanence; 

A  light  across  the  sea, 

Which  haunts  the  soul  and  will  not  let  it  be, 

Still  beaconing  from  the  heights  of 
undegenerate  years.” 

But  how  is  this  kingdom  of  perfection  to  come 
in  ?  In  answer  to  this  great  question — it  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  which  no  man  who  has  risen  to  the  dignity  of 
his  nature  will  fail  to  ask  himself — men  divide 
themselves  into  two  groups.  First,  there  are  those 
who  believe  that  through  a  process  of  natural  evo¬ 
lution  the  world  will  come  to  perfection.  They 
point  to  the  progress  which  humanity  has  already 
made,  and  remind  us  that  in  this  vast  undertaking 


15 6  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


one  day  is  as  a  thousand  years  and  a  thousand  years 
as  one  day.  By  and  by,  the  ape  and  the  tiger  will 
die  out  of  man’s  nature.  All  evils  will  disappear 
and  righteousness  shall  cover  the  earth  as  the 
waters  cover  the  sea.  We  are  not  to  expect  great 
convulsions  or  cataclysms,  and  instead  of  a  great 
falling  away  or  recession  in  the  tide  of  progress, 
the  Kingdom  of  God  will  come  gradually  in  until 
at  length  the  world  reaches  that  “  one  far-off, 
divine  event  towards  which  the  whole  creation 
moves.”  There  is  a  school  of  Christians  who  join 
in  this  altogether  unscriptural  expectation.  Thus 
Dr.  Shailer  Matthews  says :  “  To  bring  Jesus  into 
the  control  of  human  affairs  is  the  real  coming  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth.  This  is  what  the 
pictures  and  the  apocalyptic  symbols  used  by  the 
early  Christians  really  meant.  This  is  the  real 
coming  of  Christ.”  In  the  like  manner,  Dr. 
Harry  Emerson  Eosdick  describes  a  body  of  Chris¬ 
tians  who,  “  when  they  say  Christ  is  coming,  mean 
that  slowly  it  may  be,  but  surely,  His  will  and  prin¬ 
ciples  will  be  worked  out  by  God’s  grace  in  human 
life  and  institutions,  until  He  shall  see  of  the  tra¬ 
vail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied!”  Thus,  by  the 
slow  working  out  of  forces  now  resident  in  human 
society,  the  world  will  be  transformed. 

This  belief  in  the  inevitable  progress  of  human 
society  towards  perfection  is  not  nearly  so  strong 
as  it  once  was,  and  that  rosy  confidence  has,  in 
many  quarters,  given  way  to  cynical  despair.  Even 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


157 


from  the  standpoint  of  the  scientist,  men  are  not  so 
sure  that  we  move  ever  towards  a  goal  of  perfec¬ 
tion.  Fabre,  the  great  French  entomologist,  sees  no 
promise  of  an  evolution  to  perfection :  “  The  aboli¬ 
tion  of  slavery  and  the  education  of  woman :  these 
are  the  two  enormous  strides  upon  the  path  of 
moral  progress. — To  what  an  ideal  height  will  this 
process  of  evolution  lead  mankind?  To  no  very 
magnificent  height  it  is  to  be  feared.  We  are 
afflicted  by  an  indelible  taint,  a  sort  of  original  sin, 
a  state  of  things  with  which  we  have  nothing  to  do. 
We  are  made  after  a  certain  pattern  and  we  can  do 
nothing  to  change  ourselves.  We  are  marked  with 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  the  taint  of  the  belly,  the 
inexhaustible  source  of  bestiality.” 

Not  only  is  there  nothing  in  the  history  of  the 
world,  or  in  the  state  of  the  world,  today,  which 
warrants  the  expectation  of  this  natural  evolution 
to  perfection — for  evil  is  ever  strong,  and  forces  of 
destruction  are  ever  withstanding  the  forces  of  con¬ 
struction — but  even  if  by  a  process  of  evolution 
the  moral  nature  of  humanity  should  in  some  way 
be  transformed,  still,  this  perfect  creature  would  be 
left  in  an  imperfect  world,  for  there  is  nothing  in 
purely  moral  forces  and  powers  which  can  destroy 
the  natural  enemies  of  man  and  make  this  earth  a 
perfect  platform  for  his  existence.  As  Father 
Tyrrell  puts  it :  “  Shall  progress  ever  wipe  away 
the  tears  from  all  eyes?  Shall  it  ever  extinguish 
love,  and  pride,  and  ambition,  and  all  the  griefs 


158  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


attendant  in  their  train?  Prolong  life  as  it  will, 
can  progress  conquer  death  with  its  terrors  for  the 
dying,  its  tears  for  the  surviving?  Can  it  ever 
control  the  earthquake,  the  tempest,  the  lightning, 
the  cruelties  of  a  nature  indifferent  to  the  lot 
o  f  man  ?  ” 

Instead  of  this  process  of  natural  evolution, 
which  can  lead  humanity  to  no  goal  of  happiness, 
but  only  through  the  endless  and  monotonous 
cycles  of  the  past,  the  Christian  revelation  of  the 
Coming  of  the  Lord  tells  us  of  a  new  creature  in 
a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth.  This  change  will 
be  brought  about  through  no  natural,  inevitable 
growth,  but  through  the  mighty  intervention  of 
Christ,  and  the  supersession  of  the  present  order. 
In  preparation  for  this  change  the  long  ages  of 
Christian  teaching,  and  preaching,  and  moral  edu¬ 
cation  are  to  play  their  part.  The  good  wheat  is  to 
grow  until  the  harvest.  But  also  the  evil  tares. 
We  are  to  fight  against  evil  and  witness  for  Christ, 
but  we  are  not  to  expect  that  the  evil  will  disap¬ 
pear.  or  be  finally  separated  from  the  good,  until 
the  harvest,  that  is,  until  Christ  comes.  That  was 
the  meaning  of  His  profound  saying:  “  So  is  the 
kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed  into 
the  ground;  and  should  sleep  and  rise  night  and 
day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  and  grow  up;  he 
knoweth  not  how;  for  the  earth  bringeth  forth 
fruit  of  herself ;  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and 
after  that  the  full  corn  in  the  ear.  But  when  the 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


159 


fruit  is  brought  forth  immediately  he  putteth  in 
the  sickle,  because  the  harvest  is  come.” 

The  tremendous  figures  employed  by  Jesus,  a 
quenched  sun,  a  faded  moon,  and  falling  stars, 
mean  what  they  may,  certainly  do  not  lead  us  to 
expect  any  such  thing  as  a  gradual  ripening  of  the 
world  into  perfection.  The  world  will  be  made 
perfect,  but  only  when  God  brings  human  history 
to  a  climax  with  the  mighty  intervention  of  Christ, 
when  He  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead.  This  dramatic,  cataclysmal  climax  to  human 
history  is  in  keeping  with  every  portion  of  the 
Christian  revelation  and  every  instinct  of  the 
human  mind.  If  Christ’s  Church  has  been  in  this 
world  to  witness  and  preach  the  truth,  to  toil  and 
suffer  for  the  truth,  then  it  is  only  right  and 
natural  that  there  should  be  some  crowning  vindi¬ 
cation  of  that  to  which  the  Church  has  witnessed — 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  In  the  words  of  Bishop 
Gore  in  his  recent  book,  Belief  in  Christ ,  “  His 
judgment  upon  men  and  things  will  be  shown  to  be 
the  final  judgment  and  the  judgment  of  God. 
And  this  Day,  like  all  the  partial  and  preparatory 
‘  days  of  judgment,’  will  speak  the  divine  doom  on 
all  the  corrupt  civilisations  and  godless  and  in¬ 
human  forms  of  power  and  civilisation  and  institu¬ 
tions  of  cruelty  and  lust,  and  on  all  rebels  against 
God  and  right,  only  not  partially  and  locally,  but 
universally,  in  the  whole  created  world.” 

The  disciples  asked  Jesus  a  very  sensible  ques- 


160  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


tion  when  they  said,  “  What  shall  be  the  sign  of 
thy  coming  and  the  end  of  the  world  ?  ”  They 
linked  His  coming  with  the  termination  of  the 
present  order.  Common  sense  tells  us  that  the 
present  order  must  come  to  an  end.  “  Then  cometh 
the  end  ”  is  as  necessary  to  human  thinking  as  “  In 
the  beginning.”  We  cannot  think  either  that 
things  are  to  go  on  forever  as  they  are,  this  cease¬ 
less  ebb  and  flow  of  good  and  evil,  nor  can  we 
think  that  an  inevitable  and  irresistible  law  of 
progress  will  transform  either  the  moral  nature  of 
man  himself  or  the  physical  platform  on  which  his 
life  is  lived.  Christianity  alone,  with  the  promise 
of  the  Coming  of  the  Lord,  when  all  things  shall 
be  made  new,  tells  us  how  the  end  is  to  be  reached. 

As  the  Coming  of  the  Lord  is  the  only  means 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  powers  of  evil  and  the 
vindication  of  the  right  and  the  establishment  of 
truth  and  justice,  so  also  it  is  only  by  the  Coming 
of  the  Lord  that  we  have  a  provision  made  for  the 
uniting  of  all  Christ’s  followers  in  one  vast  and 
unbroken  family.  Suppose  the  world  should  at 
length  ripen  into  perfection.  Would  that  be  all 
that  our  hearts  desire?  If  the  world  were  per¬ 
fected  tomorrow,  would  your  heart,  my  heart,  have 
all  that  it  craves?  No;  you  would  still  wish  for 
reunion  with  the  beloved  dead.  Any  consumation 
of  the  human  drama  which  satisfies  the  heart  must 
be  one  which  unites  all  true  believers  with  one  an¬ 
other  and  with  Christ.  Does  any  evolutionist  sup- 


WILL  CHRIST  COME  AGAIN? 


161 


pose  that  death  is  going  to  be  evolved  out  of  ex¬ 
istence?  Will  human  progress  abolish  the  separa¬ 
tion  of  death?  Even  if  every  man  on  earth  were  a 
believer  in  Christ,  still  there  would  always  be  a 
wall  of  separation  between  the  living  believers  in 
Christ  and  the  departed  generations  of  faith. 
Faith  unites  us,  and  yet  we  are  conscious  of  the 
division  of  time  and  death. 

“  One  family  we  dwell  in  Him, 

One  church  above,  beneath. 

Though  now  divided  by  the  stream, 

The  narrow  stream  of  death. 

“  One  army  of  the  Living  God, 

To  His  command  we  bow. 

Part  of  His  Host  have  crossed  the  flood, 

And  part  are  crossing  now.” 

That  grand  hymn  of  Wesley’s  is  well  enough  for 
this  world.  But  who  wants  to  sing  that  song 
always?  Who  wants  to  acknowledge  and  face  the 
fact  that  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  divided  by 
the  stream  of  death?  No;  death  itself  must  be 
abolished,  and  all  believers  united  forever  in  one 
home  and  about  one  common  Lord  and  Christ. 
Therefore  we  pray,  “  Even  so  come,  Lord  Jesus!  ” 
With  the  answer  to  that  prayer,  human  history 
will  come  to  an  end,  and  God  shall  be  all  and  in  all. 


X 


JESUS  AND  PAUL— DO  THEY  DIFFER? 

“  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  to  appoint  thee  a  minister 
and  a  witness  both  of  things  wherein  thou  hast  seen  me, 
and  of  the  things  wherein  I  will  appear  unto  thee”— 
Acts  26:16. 

ONE  of  the  most  striking  recommendations 
of  the  Christian  religion  is  the  great 
variety  of  attacks  which  have  been  made 
upon  it  in  order  to  discredit  it.  From  every  di¬ 
rection  some  attack  has  been  launched  against  the 
citadel  of  Christian  faith  only  to  be  hurled  back, 
beaten  and  baffled.  One  army  has  assailed  its 
prophecies  and  predictions;  another  its  miracles; 
another  the  Old  Testament,  and  another  the  New 
Testament;  another  the  miraculous  and  super¬ 
natural,  so  inextricably  wound  up  with  Christian¬ 
ity;  another  the  historicity  of  its  Founder;  another 
His  deity;  another  His  miraculous  entry  into  the 
world;  another  His  resurrection  from  the  dead; 
another  His  atoning,  substitutionary  and  expiatory 
death  upon  the  Cross;  another  His  coming  again 
to  judge  the  world.  Today,  one  of  the  favourite 
modes  of  attack  is  to  try  to  create  the  impression 
of  a  discrepancy  and  a  disharmony  between  Jesus 
and  His  greatest  apostle,  Paul.  The  Christian  re- 

162 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


163 


ligion,  we  are  told,  comes  from  Jesus,  but  Christian 
theology  comes  from  Paul.  The  Christian  Church 
is  founded,  not  upon  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  but 
upon  the  theology  of  Paul,  who  took  the  simple 
story  of  Jesus  as  we  have  it  in  the  Gospels,  and 
grafted  upon  it  a  mass  of  speculative  doctrines 
about  sin,  and  salvation,  and  faith,  which  Jesus 
Himself  never  taught.  The  Peasant-Teacher  of 
Galilee,  Paul  transformed  into  a  Great  High  Priest 
Who  offers  Himself  upon  the  altar  as  a  sacrifice 
for  the  sin  of  the  world.  Thus,  at  the  very  begin¬ 
ning,  Paul  threw  the  Church  off  the  right  track, 
and  the  first  necessity  is  to  rid  ourselves  of  his 
influence,  abandon  his  doctrines,  and  go  back  to 
Jesus. 

This  alleged  disagreement  between  Jesus  and 
Paul  is  thus  stated  by  Dr.  Vedder  in  his  recent 
book,  The  Fundamentals  of  Christianity :  “  That 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  spent  His  public  life  in  giving 
to  the  Twelve  a  teaching  that  He  declared  to  be  the 
Way  of  Life ;  and  that  He  had  no  sooner  left  the 
world  than  from  His  state  of  glory  He  straightway 
deputed  another  man  to  be  His  mouthpiece  and 
chief  accredited  organ;  and  that  through  this  new 
mouthpiece  He  proceeded  to  set  aside  the  chief  part 
of  what  He  had  taught  during  His  lifetime,  sub¬ 
stituting  for  its  simple  ethics  a  complicated  group 
of  theological  speculations,  so  as  to  make  a  system 
of  theology  the  gospel,  instead  of  a  proclamation 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God — this  is  a  hypothesis  so 


164  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


fantastic,  so  lacking  in  all  elements  of  credibility, 
that  one  marvels  how  it  could  find  a  sane  advocate 
anywhere.  Who  can  credit  that  the  Heavenly 
Christ  taught  through  Paul  something  so  different 
from  what  the  earthly  Jesus  taught  the  Twelve  ? — 
It  is  a  historical  fact,  of  course,  that  the  entire 
Church  of  the  following  centuries  proceeded  to 
substitute  Paul  for  Jesus,  as  the  authoritative 
teacher  of  Christianity.-— Paul’s  teaching  was 
quietly  put  in  the  place  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
Not  one  of  the  great  theologians  of  the  Church — 
Athanasius,  Augustine,  Anselm,  Aquinas,  Me- 
lancthon,  Calvin — drew  any  considerable  part  of 
his  doctrine  from  the  words  of  Jesus.  All,  without 
exception,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  are  expounders 
of  Paul.” 

The  one  thing  which  we  can  commend  in  this 
extraordinary  arraignment  of  Christian  doctrine  is 
that  instead  of  attacking,  as  formerly  has  been  the 
custom,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  or 
the  writings  of  Calvin,  and  Luther,  and  Augustine, 
this  author  openly  acknowledges  that  the  fountain 
from  which  these  men  drew  their  teaching  was 
Paul.  According  to  this  writer,  and  others  of  the 
Modernist  school,  Paul  was  badly  mistaken,  and 
his  teachings  have  nothing  in  common  with  those 
of  Jesus.  Nevertheless,  we  are  indebted  to  these 
gentlemen  for  making  the  issue  so  clear  cut,  no 
longer  obscuring  it  with  angry  talk  about  creeds 
and  Calvin  and  Augustine  and  theologians,  but  say- 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


165 


ing  plainly  that  Paul  is  the  source  of  Christian 
theology,  and  that  Jesus  and  Paul  cannot  be 
reconciled. 

Many  years  ago  Renan,  in  the  closing  chapter 
of  his  Life  of  St.  Paul ,  wrote  in  a  similar  vein : 
“  After  having  been  for  three  centuries,  thanks  to 
orthodox  Protestantism,  the  Christian  teacher  par 
excellence ,  Paul  sees  in  our  day  his  reign  drawing 
to  a  close.  Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  lives  more  than 
ever.  It  is  no  longer  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
which  is  the  Resume  of  Christianity — it  is  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  True  Christianity,  which 
will  last  forever,  comes  from  the  Gospels,  not  from 
the  Epistles  of  Paul.  The  writings  of  Paul  have 
been  a  danger  and  a  hidden  rock,  the  causes  of  the 
principal  defects  of  Christian  theology.  Paul  is 
the  father  of  the  subtle  Augustine,  of  the  fierce 
theology  which  damns  and  predestinates  to  damna¬ 
tion. — Jesus  is  the  father  of  all  those  who  seek 
repose  of  their  souls  in  dreams  of  the  ideal.” 

Since  the  ideas  of  Paul  do  undoubtedly  dominate 
Christian  theology,  and  since  his  writings  consti¬ 
tute  the  major  portion  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  all  Christians  take  as  the  rule  of  their  faith, 
the  charge  that  Paul  differs  from  Jesus,  teaching 
what  Jesus  did  not,  and  would  not  teach,  is  a  very 
serious  one,  and  worthy  of  our  careful  examina¬ 
tion.  It  will  therefore  be  our  purpose  to  show, 
upon  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  with  the  teachings  of  Paul,  that  this  charge  is 


166  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


entirely  groundless,  that  Jesus  and  Paul  are  in  com¬ 
plete  harmony,  and  that  Paul  teaches  nothing  which 
Jesus  did  not  teach  and  authorised  him  to  teach. 

Since  the  complaint  is  made  against  Paul,  that 
he  had  added  to  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  thus  de¬ 
parting  from  the  original  rule  of  faith,  instead  of 
taking  first  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  then  seeing 
if  Paul  agrees  or  disagrees  with  them,  we  shall 
take  first  the  teachings  of  Paul  and  see  whether  or 
not  Jesus  taught  the  same  thing.  The  charge  is  not 
that  what  you  find  in  Jesus  you  cannot  find  in 
Paul,  but  that  what  is  found  in  Paul  cannot  be 
found  in  Jesus. 

I.  THE  TESTIMONY  OE  PAUE  AND  THE  ElRST 

APOSTEES 

Before  taking  up  that  examination  and  compari¬ 
son  it  ought  to  be  said  that  Paul’s  own  testimony 
as  to  the  source  of  his  teaching  must  be  given  con¬ 
sideration.  Paul,  whether  false  or  true,  was  a  very 
clear-headed  man,  and  he  says  in  the  most  unmis¬ 
takable  language  that  he  got  the  gospel  which  he 
preached  from  Jesus  Himself.  In  his  threefold 
account  of  his  conversion  on  the  way  to  Damascus, 
he  represents  Christ  as  saying  that  He  has  chosen 
Paul  to  bear  witness  to  Him  and  preach  His  gospel 
among  the  nations.  Paul  certainly  never  had  any 
idea  that  he  was  preaching  anything  except  what 
Jesus  authorised  him  to  preach.  In  another  place 
he  says  he  was  not  taught  the  gospel  he  was 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


167 


preaching,  neither  did  he  receive  it  of  man,  but  by 
a  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.  Nowhere  in  all  the 
many  writings  of  Paul  will  one  find  a  single  pas¬ 
sage  which  would  lead  one  to  believe  that  he  thinks 
of  his  gospel  as  differing  in  the  least  respect  from 
the  Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Furthermore,  not  only  was  Paul  unconscious  of 
any  innovation  in  his  teachings  about  Christianity, 
but  so  also  were  the  other  apostles  who  had  been 
with  Jesus  in  the  flesh  and  had  heard  Him  teach, 
and  had  seen  Him  in  the  resurrection,  and  would, 
therefore,  have  been  in  a  position  to  detect  any¬ 
thing  in  Paul  which  was  in  excess  of,  or  contra¬ 
dictory  to,  what  Jesus  had  taught.  The  Churches 
in  Judea,  Paul  says,  when  they  heard  the  tremen¬ 
dous  tidings,  “  He  that  once  persecuted  us  now 
preacheth  the  faith  of  which  he  once  made  havoc/’ 
“  glorified  God  in  me.”  In  other  words,  Paul’s 
preaching,  as  it  was  reported  to  the  Christians  in 
Jerusalem,  was  a  full  proclamation  of  Jesus  Christ 
such  as  they  were  familiar  with.  When  Paul  came 
to  Jerusalem  and  carefully  laid  before  them  what 
he  was  preaching,  the  three  great  leaders  of  the 
Church,  Peter,  James  and  John,  gave  Paul  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  and  bade  him  God-speed 
in  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  In  his  charge  that 
the  early  Church  substituted  Paul,  the  speculative 
theologian,  for  Jesus,  the  ethical  teacher,  Dr.  Ved- 
der  says  they  did  it  “without  consciousness  of 
what  they  were  doing”  He  could  not  say  any- 


168  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

thing  else,  for  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament,  or 
in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian  Church,  is 
there  the  least  intimation  that  what  Paul  taught 
was  different  from  what  Jesus  taught.  The 
strange,  the  unaccountable,  thing  is  that  it  should 
have  been  reserved  for  men  today  to  discover  that 
there  is  an  unbridgeable  gulf  between  Jesus  and 
Paul.  As  we  commence  our  examination  and  com¬ 
parison,  then,  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  Paul, 
let  us  bear  in  mind  that  neither  Paul  himself,  nor 
his  contemporaries,  nor  the  Christians  of  successive 
centuries  of  Church  history  betray  the  least  con¬ 
sciousness  of  a  difference  between  the  Gospel  as 
Jesus  preached  it  and  the  Gospel  as  Paul  preached 
it,  and  since  the  establishment  of  Christianity  in 
the  European  world  was,  through  the  providence 
of  God,  largely  the  work  of  one  man,  Paul,  to  say 
that  Paul  differs  from  Jesus  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Gospel  amounts  to  saying  that  the  Christian 
Church  was  founded  upon  a  colossal  and  unac¬ 
countable  mistake.  People  then,  and  through  the 
ages,  thought  that  what  Paul  was  preaching  was 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  But 
now,  that  is  discovered  to  have  been  a  huge  blunder. 

ii.  the  person  oe  jesus 

Paul  and  Jesus  both  teach  the  same  thing  as  to 
the  rank  of  Jesus.  When  Paul  was  struck  down 
on  the  Damascus  highway,  he  said,  in  reply  to  the 
words  of  Jesus,  “  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


169 


me?”  “Who  art  thou,  Lord?”  The  voice  an¬ 
swered,  “  I  am  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  thou  per- 
secutest.”  At  this,  the  beginning  of  their  relation¬ 
ship,  Jesus  did  not  apply  to  Himself  any  of  the 
mighty  titles  which  He  rightly  could  use,  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  but  simply  intro¬ 
duced  Himself  to  Paul  as  the  historical  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  That  historic  humanity  of  Jesus  is 
common,  then,  to  both  Jesus  and  Paul.  If  Jesus 
had  said,  “  I  am  the  Messiah,  I  am  the  Son  of 
God,”  Paul  might  have  answered  that  it  was  not 
such  an  one  that  he  was  persecuting,  but  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  who  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Messiah.  It  is  thus  the  historic  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels,  born  at  Bethlehem,  and  brought  up  at 
Nazareth,  who  appeared  unto  Paul  on  the  road  to 
Damascus. 

Paul,  in  his  writings,  makes  few  references  to 
the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  though  these  few  refer¬ 
ences  suggest  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts.  His 
great  interest  is  in  the  Gospel  which  came  through 
that  historic  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  When  he  had 
been  converted,  the  first  thing  Paul  did  was  to 
preach  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  “  And 
straightway  in  the  synagogues,  he  proclaimed  Jesus 
that  He  is  the  Son  of  God.”  Paul  had  hated  and 
persecuted  Jesus  for  the  same  reason  that  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  had  persecuted  Him, — be¬ 
cause  He  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  Now,  a 
converted  man,  he  turns  around  and  preaches  that 


170  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  In  one  passage  (Romans 
9:5),  Paul  definitely  calls  Christ  “  God,  blessed 
for  ever.”  He  applies  to  Jesus  the  awful  name  of 
“Lord”;  almost  always  it  is  the  “Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ” ;  and  he  applies  to  Jesus  passages  from  the 
Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  where 
“  Lord  ”  is  used  to  translate  the  Holy  Name  of  the 
God  of  Israel.  Repeatedly  also  Paul  calls  Jesus 
the  Son  of  God.  (Gal.  4:4,  5;  Romans  5:8-10; 
8:31,  32.)  In  giving  an  account  of  the  source  of 
his  gospel,  Paul  says  he  did  not  receive  it  of  man 
but  through  Jesus  Christ.  He  therefore  differenti¬ 
ates  between  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  mankind. 
When  he  went  into  the  synagogues  the  burden  of 
Paul’s  preaching  was  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  the  Messiah.  Not  only  does  he  apply  to 
Jesus  these  high  titles,  Son  of  God,  Messiah,  God, 
but  he  attributes  to  Jesus  power  and  office  which 
can  belong  only  to  God.  Through  Him  and  unto 
Him  all  things  have  been  created.  (Col.  1:  16.) 
The  Jesus  of  Paul  is  omnipotent,  for  He  is  able  to 
“  subdue  even  all  things  unto  himself.”  He  was 
pre-existent,  for  God  sent  Him  into  the  world  in 
the  fulness  of  time,  and  being  in  the  form  of  God 
He  humbled  Himself  and  took  the  form  of  man. 
He  is  the  searcher  of  all  hearts  and  the  great  judge 
before  whom  all  men  must  stand  and  give  account, 
“for  we  must  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  Christ.” 

This,  then,  is  Paul’s  belief  about  the  Jesus  of 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


171 


Nazareth  who  appeared  unto  him  on  the  road  to 
Damascus,  and  reversed  all  his  thinking  and  all  his 
living.  He  is  God’s  Son  incarnate,  manifest  in  the 
flesh ;  He  is  the  Christ,  the  Messiah,  the  Creator  of 
the  worlds,  the  judge  of  all  the  earth,  “  God  over 
all,  blessed  forever.”  He  is  the  supernatural,  stu¬ 
pendous  Person  whom  Paul  loved  and  followed, 
and  whom  he  preached  throughout  the  world. 

When  we  turn  back  to  the  Gospels  and  compare 
the  Christ  of  Paul  with  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospel 
narratives  we  find  that  they  are  identical.  Paul 
claimed  nothing  for  Jesus  that  Jesus  did  not  claim 
for  Himself.  Jesus  claimed  pre-existence,  infalli¬ 
bility,  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  the  right  to 
judge  men  and  determine  their  destiny;  and  not 
only  did  Pie  claim  these  divine  attributes,  and  prove 
His  right  to  them  by  His  miracles,  but  He  defi¬ 
nitely  said  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  the  Christ, 
and  the  Son  of  God,  and  was  put  to  death  because 
He  made  this  awful  claim.  The  Jesus,  then,  of 
Paul,  is  the  same  as  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels. 

III.  THE  TEACHINGS  OE  JESUS  AND  PAUE 

Space  does  not  permit  of  our  going  at  length 
into  the  teachings  of  Paul  and  comparing  them 
with  the  teachings  of  Jesus.  But  I  shall  mention 
some  of  the  salient  features.  No  one  can  read 
Paul’s  letters  without  being  impressed  with  the  fact 
that  he  believed  that  the  great  enemy  of  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God  was  the  kingdom  of  darkness  and  the 


172  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


prince  of  that  kingdom,  Satan,  the  devil,  the 
tempter,  the  evil  one,  the  god  of  this  age.  He 
declares  that  our  chief  warfare  as  Christian  men  is 
not  with  flesh  and  blood  and  the  visible  powers  of 
this  world,  but  with  “  principalities,  the  dominions, 
the  world  rulers  of  darkness,  the  spiritual  forces  of 
wickedness.”  We  turn  back  to  the  Gospels  and  we 
find  that  Jesus  taught  precisely  the  same  thing.  In 
the  narratives  of  the  Temptation,  which  could  have 
come  from  Jesus  only,  Jesus  prepares  Himself  for 
His  redemptive  mission  by  the  solitary  struggle 
with  Satan  in  the  wilderness.  He  said  that  when 
He  had  bound  the  strong  man  He  would  then  spoil 
the  goods  of  his  house.  The  triumph  of  His  Gos¬ 
pel  He  likened  to  the  fall  of  Satan  from  heaven. 
His  disciples,  notably  Peter,  He  warned  against 
the  temptations  of  Satan,  saying  that  he  desired  to 
have  them  that  he  might  sift  them  as  wheat.  The 
bitter  and  wicked  opposition  to  Him  on  the  part  of 
the  leaders  and  rulers  of  the  people  He  attributed 
to  the  influence  of  Satan.  Both  Paul  and  Jesus 
taught  that  there  are  evil  spirits  warring  against 
the  souls  of  men,  and  that  over  against  the  King¬ 
dom  of  God  stands  the  kingdom  of  darkness. 

Paul  was  a  great  theologian,  but  he  was  also 
what  they  call  today  a  great  “  ethical  ”  teacher. 
In  a  Gentile  civilisation  which  had  sunk  to  the 
awful  condition  sketched  by  Paul  in  the  first  chap¬ 
ter  of  Romans,  and  of  which  Seneca  said  that 
virtue  was  not  only  rare,  but  nowhere,  and  whose 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


173 


mephitic  odours,  even  at  this  distance,  appall  and 
nauseate  the  student,  Paul  preached  personal  and 
social  purity.  The  body  of  the  believer  was  the 
temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  whosoever  defiled  it 
God  would  judge  and  destroy.  Marriage  was  hon¬ 
ourable,  but  adulterers  and  whoremongers  God 
would  judge.  We  turn  back  to  Jesus  and  we  find 
that  He  taught  precisely  the  same  thing.  There 
was  adultery  even  in  a  glance  of  the  eye.  Monog¬ 
amy  was  God’s  plan  for  humanity  from  the  time  of 
the  creation  of  the  man  and  the  woman,  and  di¬ 
vorce,  except  upon  one  ground,  was  adultery.  He 
told  men,  figuratively  speaking,  to  pluck  out  their 
eye  or  cut  off  their  hand,  rather  than  indulge  in  sin 
which  would  cast  them  into  hell. 

The  world  to  which  Paul  preached  was  a  hard, 
pagan  world.  It  is  impossible  for  us,  today,  to 
imagine  how  strange  the  doctrine  of  brotherly  love 
and  forgiveness  of  injury  sounded  in  the  ears  of 
the  people  of  Antioch,  and  Athens,  and  Corinth, 
and  Rome.  Men  not  only  did  not  forgive  their 
enemies,  but  thought  it  weak  and  dishonourable  to 
do  so.  Suspicion,  revenge,  hate,  these  were  the 
principles  of  relationship  between  enemies.  But 
Paul  teaches  the  law  of  love,  of  forbearance  and 
forgiveness.  “  Bless  them  which  persecute  you : 
bless  and  curse  not.”  “  Avenge  not  yourselves,  but 
rather  give  place  to  wrath.”  “  Be  not  overcome 
with  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good.”  “  Being 
reviled,  we  bless;  being  persecuted,  we  suffer  it.” 


174  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


“  Be  ye  kind  one  to  another,  tenderhearted,  for¬ 
giving  one  another,  even  as  God  for  Christ’s  sake 
hath  forgiven  you.”  “  Forbearing  one  another  and 
forgiving  one  another,  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel 
against  any:  even  as  Christ  forgave  you,  so  also 
do  ye.”  When  we  go  back  to  the  Gospels  we  find 
that  Jesus  had  said  the  same  thing.  “  Forgive  us 
our  debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors.”  “  Love  your 
enemies  and  bless  them  which  curse  you.”  Until 
seventy  times  seven  men  are  to  forgive  their 
brothers.  When  the  Roman  soldiers,  in  obedience 
to  their  orders,  nailed  Him  to  the  Cross,  His  only 
rejoinder  and  protest  was,  “  Father  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do.”  The  ethical 
teaching  of  Paul  reaches  its  lovely  climax  in  his 
great  hymn  to  Christian  love.  I  listen  to  him  as  he 
stands  upon  that  mount  of  exaltation  and  inspira¬ 
tion  and  pours  out  his  marvelous  song :  “  Though 
I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of  angels,  and 
have  not  love,  I  am  become  as  sounding  brass  or  a 
tinkling  cymbal.  And  though  I  have  the  gift  of 
prophecy  and  understand  all  mysteries  and  all 
knowledge;  and  though  I  have  all  faith,  and  have 
not  love,  I  am  nothing.  Love  suffer eth  long  and 
is  kind;  love  envieth  not;  love  vaunteth  not  itself, 
is  not  puffed  up — Beareth  all  things,  believeth  all 
things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all  things.  Love 
never  faileth.”  As  I  listen  to  that  song  I  hear  the 
music  of  another  singer  as  He  teaches  the  people 
on  the  side  of  Galilee’s  mountain,  saying  unto  them, 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


175 


“  Love  your  enemies  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you  ” ;  or,  as  He 
rises  from  His  knees  on  the  night  in  which  He  was 
betrayed,  after  He  has  washed  the  disciples’  feet, 
and  says  to  them,  “  I  have  given  you  an  example, 
that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  unto  you.  A  new 
commandment  give  I  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one 
another.”  The  music  of  Paul’s  great  hymn  blends 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  song  of  Jesus,  for  it 
was  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  and  goes  up  like 
sweet  incense  to  heaven’s  gate. 

iv.  the:  way  ot  salvation 

We  have  left  for  the  last  that  one  doctrine  of 
Paul’s  in  which  it  is  alleged  he  departs  altogether 
from  Jesus,  and  adds  something  completely  foreign 
to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  is,  his  idea  of  how 
Christ  saves  the  sinner.  The  chief  complaint 
against  Paul  is  not  what  he  taught  about  God,  and 
the  personal  claims  of  Christ,  or  the  Christian 
morality  which  he  proclaimed,  or  his  ideas  as  to  the 
consummation  of  human  history  by  Christ’s  com¬ 
ing  again  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead,  but  what 
he  taught  about  the  way  in  which  Christ  saves  the 
sinner.  Even  among  unbelievers  there  is  not  the 
least  doubt  as  to  what  Paul  taught  on  this  subject. 
It  is  indelibly  stamped  upon  every  page  of  his  epis¬ 
tles.  All  his  theology  was  centered  in  the  Cross. 
“  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory,”  he  cried,  “  save 
in  the  cross  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  The  motto 


176  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  his  whole  ministry  was  what  he  wrote  to  the 
Christian  disciples  at  Corinth,  “  I  am  determined 
to  know  nothing  among  you  save  Jesus  Christ  and 
Him  crucified.”  That  was  the  one  great  fact  of 
his  preaching.  To  this  truth  of  the  death  of  Christ 
for  sin  all  else  was  ancillary  and  subsidiary ;  “  for 
I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  how  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures.” 

Unmistakable  as  is  the  place  of  pre-eminence 
which  Paul  gave  to  the  death  of  Christ,  his  ex¬ 
planation  of  the  meaning  of  that  death  is  not  less 
unmistakable.  Christ  died  for  our  sins.  He  was 
made  sin  in  our  behalf.  He  was  our  -substitute 
before  the  law  of  God.  When  the  guilty  and  con¬ 
demned  sinner  renounces  all  claim  to  self-righteous¬ 
ness  and  the  favour  of  God,  and  confessing  his 
sin,  puts  his  faith  in  Christ  as  the  One  who  has 
answered  for  him  and  satisfied  the  law  of  God  in 
his  behalf,  then  the  sinner  shares  in  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  Christ  and  being  justified  by  faith  is  par¬ 
doned  and  accepted  by  God.  By  this  method  of 
dealing  with  man’s  sin,  punishing  it  in  the  death 
of  Christ,  yet  at  the  same  time  on  the  ground  of 
that  death  forgiving  it,  God  was  both  just  and 
merciful.  He  remains  just,  yet  the  justifier  of 
them  that  believe  in  Jesus.  The  death  of  Christ 
thus  is  an  exhibition  of  the  punishment  which  sin 
deserves,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  the  marvelous 
love  and  grace  of  God,  who  commended  His  love 
to  us  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


177 


for  us.  This  is  what  we  mean  by  Pauline  theology. 
It  is  Paul’s  doctrine  of  the  Cross.  This  is  the 
theme  which  sets  in  full  operation  the  splendid 
machinery  of  Paul’s  intellect  and  evokes  in  his 
heart  wonder  and  praise  at  the  depth  of  the  riches 
of  the  redeeming  love  of  God  for  sinners,  especially 
when  Paul  remembers  with  pangs  of  contrition  that 
he  was  the  chief  of  sinners  and  once  persecuted  the 
Christ  whom  now  he  adores.  When  Paul  said, 
“  For  me  to  live  is  Christ,”  he  meant  the  Christ 
who  bore  his  sin  on  the  Cross  and  who  by  His 
substitution  and  expiation  provided  for  his  pardon 
and  reconciliation.  “  I  live,”  he  says,  “  by  the 
faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave 
Himself  for  me.” 

But  now  we  have  those  who  say  that  while  this 
is  the  teaching  of  Paul  it  is  not  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  Jesus,  they  say,  taught  forgiveness,  but 
upon  the  ground  of  repentance,  not  upon  the 
ground  of  His  death  upon  the  Cross.  When  the 
prodigal  said,  “  Father,  I  have  sinned,”  he  was 
forgiven  by  the  father.  So  God  forgives  the 
returning  sinner.  But  Paul’s  doctrine  of  for¬ 
giveness  is  one  based  on  the  old  Hebrew  custom 
of  sacrifice,  the  idea  that  a  sacrifice  must  be  made 
to  God  in  order  to  propitiate  Him  and  secure  His 
favour  and  pardon.  Thus,  it  is  alleged,  do  Jesus 
and  Paul  differ  completely  about  the  fundamental 
truth  of  Christianity,  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 

The  only  way  in  which  we  can  find  out  whether 


178  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


Jesus  differs  from  Paul  as  to  the  way  of  salvation 
is  to  see  if  this  way  of  salvation  taught  by  Paul  is 
absent  from,  and  not  only  absent  from,  but  con¬ 
trary  to,  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  they  are  recorded 
in  the  Gospels.  This  will  now  be  our  task.  Our 
examination  brings  to  light  the  following  facts. 

1.  Jesus ,  like  Paul ,  gives  pre-eminent  place  to 
His  death.  It  is  evident  from  the  reading  of  the 
Four  Gospels  that  their  authors  considered  the 
death  of  Christ  the  pre-eminent  fact  of  His  minis¬ 
try.  Only  two  of  the  four  evangelists  tell  of  the 
birth  of  Christ;  only  two  of  the  Temptation;  only 
two  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  only  two  tell  of 
the  Ascension.  The  Transfiguration,  the  Lord’s 
Supper  and  the  Agony  in  the  Garden  have  no  place 
in  John’s  Gospel;  the  sketches  of  the  Resurrection 
are  brief.  But  all  of  the  Gospels  relate  in  full  the 
betrayal,  arrest,  denial,  trial,  torture  and  death  of 
Christ.  “  The  fulfilment  of  type  and  shadow,  of 
the  hopes  of  patriarchs,  of  the  expectations  of 
prophets,  yea,  and  of  the  dim  longings  of  a  whole 
lost  and  sinful  world,  must  be  declared  by  the 
whole  evangelistic  company;  the  four  streams  that 
go  forth  to  water  the  earth  must  here  meet  in  a 
common  channel;  the  four  winds  of  the  Spirit  of 
Life  must  here  be  united  into  one.”  This  fact 
demands  an  explanation.  Old  Testament  saints 
and  prophets  are  dismissed  in  a  few  words.  In 
the  Gospels  only  a  few  lines  are  given  to  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  whom  Jesus  called  the 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


179 


greatest  man  the  world  had  ever  seen.  Luke,  who 
gives  so  careful  and  lengthy  an  account  of  the 
death  of  Jesus,  dismisses  the  Apostle  James  with  a 
half-dozen  words,  when  he  was  slain  by  Herod. 
Nor  was  it  mere  reverence  for  the  person  of  Jesus, 
nor  faith  in  the  Resurrection,  that  made  these  men 
dwell  so  much  on  His  death.  It  can  only  have  been 
because  that  when  they  wrote  they  attached  to  His 
death  the  most  profound  significance.  Where  did 
they  get  that  idea  and  impression?  It  must  have 
been  from  Jesus  Himself. 

As  a  future  fact  the  death  of  Christ  was  present 
with  Him  from  the  very  beginning  of  His  minis¬ 
try.  Jesus  knew  the  meaning  of  John’s  allusion 
when  he  cried,  “  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  At  the  first 
passover  He  said,  “  Destroy  this,  temple,  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up,”  meaning  the  temple 
of  His  body.  To  Nicodemus,  a  few  days  after¬ 
ward,  He  said  that  “  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent 
in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  lie 
lifted  up.”  When  the  Jews  insisted  upon  a  sign, 
He  said  that  as  Jonah  was  in  the  belly  of  the 
whale,  even  so  the  Son  of  Man  should  be  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.  In 
His  parable  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  He  referred  to 
His  approaching  death,  and  again  in  His  parable  of 
how  the  husbandmen  killed  the  heir  and  son.  Most 
tenderly,  too,  when  the  disciples  rebuked  Mary  for 
the  costly  gift  of  the  ointment  and  pure  nard 


180  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


which  she  had  poured  over  His  head  and  His  feet. 
He  said  to  let  her  alone,  for  she  had  kept  it  against 
the  day  of  His  burying.  When  the  Greeks  came  to 
visit  Him,  in  His  moods  of  alternate  jubilation  and 
dread  He  cried  out,  “I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw 
all  men  unto  me.”  On  the  mount  of  transfigura¬ 
tion  He  spake  with  Moses  and  Elijah  concerning 
His  decease  which  He  should  accomplish  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem.  Nor  were  His  references  to  His  death  just 
occasional  or  incidental,  for  three  of  the  evan¬ 
gelists  tell  us  that  in  the  most  direct  and  care¬ 
ful  and  positive  way  He  taught  the  disciples  both 
the  fact  and  the  manner  of  His  death — that  He 
would  be  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  the  Jewish 
rulers,  who  in  turn  would  hand  Him  over  to  the 
Gentiles,  that  is,  the  Romans,  who  would  put  Him 
to  death  by  crucifixion.  For  the  beginning  of  this 
instruction  Jesus  chose  one  of  the  most  impressive 
moments  of  His  ministry,  when  Peter  had  publicly 
confessed  Him  as  the  Son  of  the  Living  God. 
Then  it  was  that  Jesus  from  that  time  forth  began 
to  show  unto  His  disciples  where  and  how  He 
would  be  put  to  death.  Matt.  16:21.  “The  Son 
of  Man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be  rejected 
of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and  scribes,  and  be 
slain,  and  be  raised  the  third  day.  Let  these  say¬ 
ings  sink  down  into  your  ears,  for  the  Son  of 
Man  shall  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men.” 
Luke  9 :  22,  44.  These  sayings  did  “  sink  down  ” 
into  their  ears  and  into  their  hearts  That  is 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


181 


why  the  death  of  Christ  fills  so  large  a  space  in  the 
Gospels. 

In  addition  to  these  frequent  references  to  His 
death,  whether  incidental  or  deliberated,  direct  or 
veiled,  and  which  in  themselves  must  have  im¬ 
pressed  the  disciples,  there  is  the  striking  fact  of 
the  way  in  which  Jesus  felt  towards  His  death. 
When  the  Greeks  came  to  visit  Him,  and  in  them 
He  saw  the  future  conquests  of  the  Cross,  He  cried 
out  in  joy;  but  the  next  moment,  when  He  realised 
anew  what  the  victory  would  cost,  as  He  saw  Him¬ 
self  the  offering  for  sin,  He  cried  out,  “  Now  is 
My  soul  troubled,  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father, 
save  Me  from  this  hour!”  Strange  that  the 
Victor  should  thus  pray  to  be  saved  from  the  hour 
of  victory!  At  the  Fast  Supper,  when  Jesus  saw 
Judas  sitting  at  the  table  and  knew  that  in  a  few 
hours  he  would  betray  Him,  and  thus  start  Him  on 
the  path  to  the  cross,  John  says  that  He  was 
“  troubled  in  spirit.”  For  a  little  while  He  was 
able  to  throw  off  that  deep  agitation  of  the  soul, 
when  with  all  His  sublime  qualities  of  heart  and 
mind  at  full  command  He  breathed  over  the  dis¬ 
ciples  His  tender  last  farewell. 

But  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane  it  returned  to 
trouble  Him.  He  began  to  be  sorrowful,  and  said 
to  His  disciples,  Peter,  James  and  John,  “  My  soul 
is  exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death.”  Then, 
unable  to  endure  even  their  intimacy,  He  withdrew 
from  them  about  a  stone’s  cast  and  entered  into 


182  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


His  agony  and  sweat  as  it  were  great  drops  of 
blood,  and  prayed,  “  O  My  Father,  if  it  be  pos¬ 
sible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me !  ”  Jesus  had 
passed  under  the  cloud  of  suffering  which  was  not 
to  lift  till  the  last  great  cry  on  the  Cross  had  been 
uttered.  That  suffering,  either  anticipated,  or  in 
the  very  hour  of  the  crucifixion,  must  have  been, 
more  than  the  natural  shrinking  of  the  body  from 
pain.  There  is  something  deeper  and  more  mys¬ 
terious  in  it.  It  reached  its  climax  when  it  wrung 
from  Him  the  awful  cry,  “  My  God,  my  God,  why 
hast  thou  forsaken  me?  ”  In  view  of  what  Jesus 
said  before  by  way  of  explaining  His  death  and 
what  He  and  His  disciples  said  afterwards,  we  be¬ 
lieve  that  this  strange  agony  and  suffering  was  that 
of  One  whose  soul  was  made  an  offering  for  sin; 
that  in  that  death  He  was  dying  the  sinner’s  con¬ 
dign  death;  and  without  such  explanation  that  ex¬ 
perience  of  Christ  on  the  cross  is  one  which  may 
well  fill  us  with  dismay,  for  then  it  would  tell  us 
that  as  God  forsook  Christ,  so  He  may  forsake  us. 
But  so  far  our  point  is  simply  to  demonstrate  that 
the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  His  death,  both  His 
frequent  references  to  it  and  His  anguish  of  soul 
as  He  contemplated  it  and  encountered  it,  shows 
that  even  if  He  had  said  nothing  at  all  as  to  the 
relation  of  His  death  to  human  sin  and  redemption, 
His  death  would  stand  out  as  the  one  great  fact  of 
His  ministry,  demanding  some  kind  of  an  explana¬ 
tion,  and  making  it  perfectly  reasonable  that  one  of 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


183 


His  followers,  speaking  of  Him,  should  say,  “  For 
I  delivered  unto  you,  first  of  all,  how  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins.” 

2.  Jesus  gives  the  same  meaning  to  His  death 
that  Paul  does,  namely,  that  it  is  a  substitutionary 
death  for  the  sinner.  We  have  seen  that  the  space 
in  the  four  Gospels  devoted  to  the  death  of  Christ, 
the  frequent  and  careful  references  of  Jesus  to  it, 
and  His  strange  and  mysterious  suffering  in  it,  and 
in  contemplation  of  it,  give  beyond  all  doubt  a 
primary  significance  to  His  death.  But  what  was 
that  meaning?  Why  did  He  die?  We  know  what 
the  answer  of  Paul  is,  and  the  answer  of  historic 
Christianity,  and  even  if  Jesus  had  given  no  ex¬ 
planation  of  His  death,  the  explanation  of  the 
letters  of  Paul  would  be  the  only  reasonable  ex¬ 
planation.  But  what  did  Jesus  say?  Did  He  give 
any  explanation,  and  if  so,  is  that  explanation  the 
same  as  that  of  Paul  and  historic  Christianity? 
This  is  the  issue. 

Fortunately,  Jesus  was  not  silent.  That  He  did 
not  enter  into  an  elaborated  account  of  the  rela¬ 
tionship  of  His  death  to  the  sin  of  the  world,  such 
as  we  have  in  the  letter  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  for 
example,  is  not  strange.  In  the  first  place,  any 
explanation  before  His  death  must  necessarily  have 
differed,  not  in  content,  but  in  form,  from  the  ex¬ 
planations  which  came  after  His  death;  and  in  the 
second  place,  the  explanation  of  the  Saviour  will 
be  stated  in  a  different  way  than  the  explanation 


184  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  the  sinner.  Jesus’  explanation  is  that  of  the 
Redeemer;  Paul’s  explanation  is  that  of  the  re¬ 
deemed  sinner.  Jesus  expected  and  made  provision 
for  an  enlargement  upon  what  He  taught,  and  es¬ 
pecially  upon  what  He  had  taught  on  this  very 
subject  of  His  death,  for  He  said,  “  I  have  yet 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear 
them  now.  But  when  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come, 
He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth.”  Chrysostom, 
therefore,  was  not  speaking  in  reckless  enthusiasm 
of  Paul,  when  he  said  he  would  like  to  see  the  dust 
of  that  mouth  which  lifted  the  truth  on  high  and 
through  which  “  Christ  spake  the  great  and  secret 
things,  and  greater  than  in  His  own  person.” 
Christ  did  speak  through  Paul  greater  things  than 
in  His  own  person,  that  is,  more  fully,  because 
men  could  then  receive  them.  As  Dr.  Dale  finely 
puts  it  in  his  work  on  the  Atonement,  “  The  real 
truth  is  that  while  He  came  to  preach  the  Gospel, 
His  chief  object  in  coming  was  that  there  might  be 
a  Gospel  to  preach.” 

But  there  is  nothing  that  Paul  said  about  the 
death  of  Christ  which  Jesus  Himself  did  not  utter 
in  its  preliminary  form.  In  His  address,  recorded 
in  John’s  Gospel,  Jesus  likened  Himself  to  the  shep¬ 
herd  of  the  flock,  not  at  all  in  the  way  in  which 
David,  in  the  Twenty-third  Psalm,  speaks  of  the 
shepherd  and  what  he  does  for  the  flock,  leading  it 
into  green  pastures  and  beside  the  still  waters,  but 
as  a  shepherd  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the  flock. 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


185 


A  shepherd  might  give  up  his  life  in  defense  of  his 
flock  in  the  struggle  with  robbers  or  with  wild 
beasts ;  but  Jesus  makes  it  clear  that  He  lays  down 
His  life  voluntarily:  “  No  man  taketh  it  from  me.” 
This  does  not  tell  us  that  the  death  of  Jesus  is  for 
the  sins  of  men,  but  it  does  tell  us  that  it  was  a 
unique  death,  and  that  it  bore  to  men  some  rela¬ 
tionship  quite  distinct  from  that  of  men  who  have 
died  the  most  heroic  and  self-sacrificing  death. 
In  His  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  He  not 
only  tells  him  that  a  man  must  have  a  new  life 
in  God,  be  born  again,  but  tells  him  how  and  at 
what  a  price  that  life  may  be  secured — “  For  as 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only  Son.”  There  the 
death  of  Christ  for  the  life  of  men  is  clearly 
taught. 

Again,  Jesus  comes  very  close  to  the  central 
thought  of  His  death  when  He  rebuked  the  dis¬ 
ciples  for  their  striving  for  place  and  taught  them 
humility  and  service  for  others,  saying,  “  For  even 
the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.”  The  word  ransom  needed  no  explanation 
in  that  day.  Ransom  was  money  paid  for  the  re¬ 
turn  of  a  lost  possession;  it  was  the  atonement 
money  paid  by  every  Jew  to  avert  the  judgments 


186  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


of  God;  it  was  the  price  paid  to  redeem  a  man  from 
captivity  and  slavery;  it  was  the  price  paid  to  save 
a  man  from  death.  In  any  discussion  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  very  impor¬ 
tant  part  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  lies  in  the  period 
of  the  forty  days  between  the  Resurrection  and 
the  Ascension.  I  think  that  much  of  the  well- 
formulated  Christian  theology  which  we  meet  as 
soon  as  we  enter  the  Book  of  the  Acts  was  given 
to  the  disciples  by  Jesus  during  this  period,  and  that 
together  with  the  confirmation  of  the  fact  of  His 
bodily  Resurrection  this  purpose  of  doctrinal  in¬ 
struction  was  the  reason  for  Christ’s  wait  of  forty 
days  before  He  ascended  into  heaven.  The  sermon 
preached  to  the  two  on  the  road  to  Emmaus  shows 
us  what  was  the  content  of  the  instruction  of  Jesus 
about  the  Kingdom  of  God,  to  which  Luke  refers 
in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts.  It  was  a  message 
of  redemption  from  sin  through  His  death.  In  the 
sermon  He  preached  to  Cornelius,  Peter  givdk  a 
summary  of  Christian  theology — Christ,  the  Ful- 
filler  of  prophecy,  Christ,  the  Judge  of  the  whole 
earth,  and  Christ,  the  Redeemer  from  sin.  Peter 
says  that  this  was  the  message  given  by  Jesus  to  the 
disciples  between  the  Resurrection  and  the  Ascen¬ 
sion.  We  may  well  suppose  that  these  are  but 
fragments  of  a  rich  and  full  redemptive  teaching 
between  the  Resurrection  and  the  Ascension  of 
Christ. 

There  are  many  other  passages  which  might  be 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


187 


quoted,  but  the  one  great  explanation  which  Christ 
gave  us  of  His  death  is  found  in  the  celebration  of 
the  feast  which  was  to  commemorate  that  death. 
In  order  that  there  might  be  no.  misapprehension  of 
His  meaning,  and  that  the  purpose  of  His  death 
might  not  be  left  to  uncertain  allusion  or  reference, 
or  to  be  inferred  from  His  anguish  in  Gethsemane, 
or  His  agony  on  the  Cross,  Jesus  selected  the  night 
of  His  betrayal  as  the  solemn  hour  for  showing  in 
the  plainest  and  most  unmistakable  terms  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  death  He  was  to  die  on  the  morrow. 
Neither  the  taunts  of  His  foes  nor  the  requests  of 
His  friends  drew  from  Him  this  great  and  beauti¬ 
ful  explanation.  Language  changes  from  age  to 
age,  and  in  transmitting  thought  from  one  genera¬ 
tion  to  another  there  is  always  some  risk  of  the 
true  and  original  idea  being  lost  sight  of.  It  was 
wise  forethought,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  Jesus 
to  explain  His  death  by  a  sacred  rite,  whose  sym¬ 
bols  and  elements  could  speak  a  universal  language. 
As  they  were  eating  the  Passover  supper,  Jesus 
took  bread  and  said,  “Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body 
which  is  broken  for  you;  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  me.”  Then  He  took  the  cup  and  gave  thanks 
and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  “  Drink  ye  all  of  it, 
for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  covenant  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  We 
have  four  accounts  of  the  institution  of  this  rite, 
now  called  the  Lord’s  Supper,  the  three  in  the 
Gospels  and  Paul’s.  In  no  two  of  them  do  we  have 


188  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


the  words  of  Jesus  in  precisely  the  same  form,  yet 
in  all  of  them  the  same  fundamental  idea  is  pre¬ 
served,  that  His  death  was  in  some  peculiar  and 
unusual  sense  for  others ,  or,  as  it  is  stated  in 
Matthew’s  Gospel,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  That 
was  the  grand  purpose  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
Heave  out  of  the  reckoning  all  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament,  what  Peter  and  John,  and  Philip  and 
Paul  say  about  Christ’s  death  being  for  the  remis¬ 
sion  of  sins,  and  let  the  Gospels  stand  alone,  and 
still  you  have  that  glorious  truth,  the  refuge  of  the 
past  ages,  the  hope  of  generations  to  come,  the 
believer’s  only  stay,  the  theme  of  the  redeemed  in 
heaven,  that  Christ  through  His  death  saves  us 
from  our  sins. 

But  when  you  take,  in  addition  to  the  four  Gos¬ 
pels,  that  great  literature  which  came  from  the 
heart  and  mind  of  one  who  felt  himself  to  be  the 
chief  of  sinners,  and  knew  that  Christ  had  greatly 
saved  him,  and  place  it  side  by  side  with  the  four 
Gospels,  and  compare  one  with  the  other,  you  dis¬ 
cover  that  just  as  the  one  great  fact  of  Paul’s 
Epistles  is  the  death  of  Christ,  stamped  in  crimson 
on  every  page,  so  in  the  Gospels  the  one  great  fact 
is  the  death  of  Christ.  And  further,  when  you 
take  the  explanation  which  Paul’s  Epistles  give  of 
the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Christ,  that  it  was  for 
the  remission  of  our  sins,  that  He  was  our  sin- 
offering,  that  He  was  our  substitute,  that  He  took 
our  place,  and  compare  that  explanation  with  what 


JESUS  AND  PAUL 


189 


Jesus  Himself  says  of  His  death,  you  find  it  to  be 
the  same. 

Pilate  wrote  over  Him  on  the  Cross  the  motto, 
“  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the  Jews.”  But 
the  real  motto  over  the  Cross  was  that  of  Jesus 
Himself,  “  This  is  my  blood  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  To  that  motto 
the  answer  of  Paul,  as  he  stands  at  the  foot  of  the 
Cross,  gazing  at  the  Crucified,  and  the  answer  of  all 
the  generations  of  believers,  and  the  rapturous 
song  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven,  was,  is,  and  ever 
shall  be,  “The  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me  and  gave 
himself  for  me.” 


XI 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO  ? 

“If  he  that  cometh  preacheth  another  Jesus ” 

— — 2  Cor.  11:4. 

IN  one  of  his  letters  to  Christian  believers  in  a 
city  where  he  had  preached,  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
the  possibility  of  men  coming  to  them  who 
will  preach  “  another  Jesus.5’  They  would  speak, 
of  course,  of  the  same  historical  person,  but  their 
conception  of  Him  would  be  so  different  that  it 
would  be  as  if  they  were  telling  of  an  altogether 
different  Jesus. 

Another  Jesus!  It  is  a  far  cry  from  the  Juda- 
isers  of  Corinth  and  Galatia  who  would  have  made 
Christianity  a  religion  of  rites  and  customs  and 
works,  instead  of  a  religion  of  redemption  from 
sin,  to  the  modernists  who  preach  in  many  of  our 
pulpits,  today,  and  write  in  many  of  our  magazines 
and  have  much  to  say  about  Jesus.  But  the 
Judaisers  of  the  first  century  and  the  Modernists 
of  the  twentieth  century  are  alike  in  this  respect: 
they  both  present  to  the  world  “  another  Jesus.” 
Great  changes  in  the  religious  life  and  habits  of  a 
people  come  slowly  and  almost  imperceptibly; 
there  is  no  paroxysm  to  mark  the  transition  from 

190 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


191 


one  form  of  faith  to  another.  For  this  reason  the 
astounding  change  which  has  come  over  the  Prot¬ 
estant  conception  of  Christianity  is  only  partially 
realised,  and  in  many  quarters  not  at  all.  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  boards  and  agencies  go  calmly  on  planning 
their  progressive  work  and  using  the  language  of 
the  Protestantism  of  yesterday  as  if  it  expressed 
the  belief  of  the  Protestantism  of  today,  whereas 
the  fact  is,  that  so  great  has  been  the  change  which 
has  come  over  the  Protestant  Churches  that  it  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say  that,  in  some  places,  Protestant¬ 
ism  is  offering  to  the  world,  today,  “  another 
Jesus.”  This  statement,  I  know,  will  be  warmly  re¬ 
sented  in  many  quarters,  and  by  none  more  warmly 
than  by  those  who  have  gone  the  farthest  in  pro¬ 
claiming  “  another  Jesus.” 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  more  awake  to 
this  stupendous  change  which  has  been  going  on  in 
the  Protestant  Church  than  those  within  the  pale 
of  the  Reformation  Churches.  A  writer  in  a 
recent  number  of  a  Catholic  journal  thus  sums  up 
the  situation  in  the  Protestant  Church  as  viewed 
by  a  Catholic : 

“  The  changed  attitude  of  Protestantism  towards  the 
Bible  is  nothing  short  of  a  complete  right  about  face. 
For  the  Reformers  there  was  no  other  rule  of  faith.  In 
the  inspired  Word  of  God  was  the  only  truth  clearly 
spoken  to  men,  obviously  intelligible,  patent  to  all  who 
ran  or  read.  Now  professors  in  Protestant  seminaries 
throw  out,  with  a  careless  toss  of  the  hand,  whole  books 
of  the  Scripture,  essential  passages  in  the  Gospels,  any 


192  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


chapter  or  verse  that  does  not  please  their  fancy.  As 
for  faith  without  works,  we  have  seen  that  original  doc¬ 
trine  of  Protestantism  stood  on  its  head,  until  it  reads 
now,  not  faith  without  works,  but  works  without  faith; 
or,  to  put  it  more  plainly,  it  makes  no  difference  what 
you  believe,  as  long  as  you  do  what  you  consider  right. 
No  wonder  that  Protestantism  has  become  year  by  year 
less  religious  and  more  purely  social  in  character.  The 
day  is  past  when  Protestantism  thinks  its  faith  worth 
fighting  for.” 

The  indictment  is  severe;  yet  many  earnest  souls 
in  the  Protestant  Communion  confess  that  there  is 
much  in  the  Protestant  Church  which  affords  a 
basis  for  it.  Read  the  books  of  sermons,  talk  with 
the  average  Protestant  layman,  sit  in  the  churches 
on  the  Sabbath  and  listen  to  the  sermons,  and  you 
will  realise  that  in  many  Protestant  circles  the 
great  question,  “What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved?” 
and  the  great  answer  which  created  the  Protestant 
Church,  “  Salvation  is  of  faith,”  are  no  longer 
spoken.  The  Protestant  mind  no  longer  seems  to 
trouble  itself  with  that  greatest  of  all  problems. 
The  excuse  given  is  that  it  has  something  infinitely 
more  important  to  attend  to,  that  is,  the  salvation 
of  the  social  order.  Hence  the  terrible  paralysis, 
and  blight,  and  weariness,  that  have  come  over 
Protestant  worship.  The  Protestant  Churches 
were  established  in  the  beginning  to  answer  in  some 
way,  and  with  some  particular  emphasis,  that  ques¬ 
tion  as  to  the  salvation  of  a  soul.  All  the  creeds, 
and  all  the  hymns,  and  all  the  sacraments,  take  for 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


193 


granted  that  that  is  the  main  issue.  But  now,  upon 
this  creedal,  confessional,  individualistic  branch  of 
religion  there  has  been  a  vast  effort  to  graft  a 
secularistic  conception  of  Christianity.  But  the 
grafting  has  not  been  a  success.  The  native  stock 
has  been  hurt  and  wounded,  so  much  so  that  it  can 
give  neither  the  fruit  nor  shade  for  the  soul  of 
man  which  once  it  did,  and  the  new  branch,  the 
scion,  is  already  dead,  although  the  shaking  of  the 
branch  by  the  vagrant  winds  and  the  rustling  of 
its  withered  leaves  make  a  considerable  noise,  and 
to  a  passer-by,  who  did  not  look  too  closely,  might 
give  the  impression  of  vitality  and  enterprise. 

Volumes  might  be  written  to  explain  how,  and 
why  this  change  has  taken  place.  But  the  piercing 
phrase  of  Paul  tells  us  all  in  two  words,  “  Another 
Jesus.”  Who  can  doubt  that  such  a  Jesus  is  now 
being  proclaimed?  In  two  respects  the  Jesus  of 
Modernism,  that  is,  the  Jesus  of  many  of  the 
Protestant  pulpits,  and  many  of  the  Protestant 
colleges  and  seminaries,  is  “  another  ”  Jesus  than 
that  of  the  New  Testament.  First,  important  facts 
are  missing  from  the  story  of  His  life;  and 
secondly,  the  facts  which  remain  are  so  reinter¬ 
preted  that  what  they  present  to  us  is  another 
gospel  and  another  Christ. 

Let  us  commence  with  some  of  the  facts  in  the 
life  of  our  Lord  which  are  not  found  in  the  life  of 
this  new  Jesus.  Every  man’s  personality  is  made 
up  of  a  certain  number  of  facts,  such  as  his  parent- 


194  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


age,  the  time  and  place  of  his  birth,  his  education, 
his  occupation,  his  home  and  family.  It  is  not 
otherwise  with  the  personality  of  our  Lord,  so  far 
as  His  life  upon  earth  is  concerned.  The  initial 
fact  of  His  earthly  life  was  the  fact  of  His  birth. 
The  Gospels  not  only  tell  us  of  the  Incarnation  of 
God  in  Jesus,  but  they  tell  us  the  manner  of  the 
Incarnation,  that  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  became 
man  by  taking  to  Himself  a  true  body  and  a  rea¬ 
sonable  soul,  being  conceived  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
born  of  her,  yet  without  sin.  Theories,  interpre¬ 
tations,  do  not  enter  into  this  question,  for  it  is  a 
matter  of  fact.  The  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

But  it  is  precisely  at  this  initial  and  fundamental 
fact  in  the  life  of  Jesus  that  the  Jesus  of  Modern¬ 
ism  begins  to  draw  away  from  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels.  The  Jesus  of  Modernism  was  not  bom 
of  the  Virgin  Mary.  The  New  Testament  state¬ 
ments  to  that  effect  are  to  be  understood  as  the 
pious  efforts  of  earnest  men  to  account  for  the 
evident  pre-eminence  of  the  Person  of  Jesus. 
They  fell  back  on  the  old  pagan  idea  of  miraculous 
conception,  and  phrased  their  idea  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  in  what  a  prominent  present-day  preacher 
describes  as  a  “  biological  miracle  which  the  mod¬ 
em  mind  cannot  receive.”  Just  why  the  “  modem 
mind  ”  should  be  exempted  from,  this  part  of 
Christian  faith  is  not  clear,  for  we  remember  that 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


195 


Cerinthus,  a  contemporary  of  St.  John,  found  the 
Virgin  Birth  a  biological  miracle  which  his  ancient 
mind  could  not  receive.  Some  Modernists  who 
reject  the  initial  fact  of  the  New  Testament  life  of 
Jesus  warmly  asseverate  their  faith  in  Jesus  as 
God  and  as  their  Redeemer.  I  ask  them  where 
they  get  their  knowledge  of  this  Jesus  who  is  God’s 
Son  and  the  world’s  Redeemer?  They  tell  me 
from  the  New  Testament,  not  seeming  to  under¬ 
stand  that  by  rejecting  the  Virgin  Birth  as  unhis- 
torical,  they  have  confessed  that  the  entire  nar¬ 
rative  is  untrustworthy,  for  if  the  initial  fact 
recorded  is  false,  why  should  we  take  seriously 
the  other  facts? 

But,  says  the  Modernist,  “  Why  insist  upon  a 
Virgin  Birth?”  Could  not  the  Son  of  God  have 
become  incarnate  in  Jesus  through  the  process  of 
ordinary  generation,  with  Joseph  for  His  father, 
and  Mary  for  His  mother?  To  be  sure  God  who 
is  almighty,  could  have  done  so,  although  had  that 
been  the  method  of  the  Incarnation  it  would  be  a 
mystery  a  thousand  times  more  perplexing  than 
what  we  have. 

In  a  recently  published  sermon,  a  Presbyterian 
minister  who  objects  to  the  declaration  of  the  1923 
General  Assembly  that  the  Virgin  Birth  is  an  es¬ 
sential  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  standards,  appeals  to  an  utterance  of  Dr. 
Francis  L.  Patton,  the  former  President  of  Prince¬ 
ton  University  and  of  Princeton  Theological  Semi- 


196  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 

nary.  According  to  his  oft-quoted  utterance,  Dr. 
Patton  said  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  God 
could  not  have  incarnated  Himself  through  a 
human  father  as  well  as  through  a  human  mother. 
In  the  sense  in  which  Dr.  Patton  must  have  said 
this,  no  one  would  take  exception  to  it.  It  is  true 
that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  Almighty  God 
could  not  have  incarnated  Himself  through  a 
human  father  as  well  as  through  a  human  mother. 
It  is  also  true  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that 
He  did. 

But  it  is  not  a  question  at  all  of  what  is  possible 
with  God.  God  might  have  had  an  altogether  dif¬ 
ferent  race.  He  might  have  chosen  some  other 
plan  of  redemption.  It  is  not  a  question  of  what 
God  can  do,  or  might  have  done,  but  what  God  has 
done.  In  the  narrative  of  the  Virgin  Birth  the 
Gospels  tell  us  how  the  Word  became  flesh.  If, 
therefore,  a  man  comes  to  me  preaching  a  Jesu9 
who  was  not  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  it  is  another 
Jesus  than  that  of  the  New  Testament. 

With  the  great  miracle  of  His  Incarnation  thus 
rejected,  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should  very 
quickly  discover  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Modernist  is 
a  Jesus  who  Himself  did  no  miracles.  The  ground 
upon  which  the  miracles  are  rejected  cannot  be  the 
lack  of  evidence,  for  the  evidence  for  the  miracles 
is  just  the  same  as  that  for  any  of  the  facts  of  the 
life  of  Jesus.  The  evidence  that  Jesus  stilled  the 
tempest  is  just  the  same  as  it  is  for  His  being 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


197 


asleep  on  a  pillow  in  the  stem  of  the  boat.  The 
evidence  for  His  walking  upon  the  sea  is  just  the 
same  as  the  evidence  for  His  walking  by  the  sea 
and  calling  His  disciples.  The  real  ground  of  re¬ 
jection  is  a  repugnance  for  the  supernatural  as 
related  to  Christianity.  The  Modernist  is  in  real¬ 
ity  a  disciple  of  Hume,  whose  position  was  that 
miracles  do'  not  happen,  therefore  they  never  hap¬ 
pened.  Instead  of  rejecting  miracles  on  the  ground 
of  lack  of  evidence,  the  Modernist  ignores  the  evi¬ 
dence  altogether.  The  new  knowledge  of  the 
operation  of  the  laws  of  nature  which  man  has 
acquired  is  put  forward  as  exempting  the  modern 
mind  from  any  serious  consideration  of  the  mir¬ 
acles.  But  when  this  reason  is  given  we  wonder 
why  so  much  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  modern 
mind,  for  going  through  the  pages  of  Origen’s 
refutation  of  the  assault  of  Celsus  on  Christianity, 
a.  d.  161-180,  we  discover  that  the  second  century 
mind  of  Celsus,  unschooled  in  modern  science,  was 
just  as  unwilling  and  unable  to  accept  a  miracle  as 
the  mind  of  the  most  vocal  Modernist  of  our  own 
day.  If  many  crimes  have  been  committed  in  the 
name  of  religion,  it  is  likewise  true  that  many 
rejections  of  the  Christian  revelation  which  are 
born  of  fallen  man’s  natural  enmity  to  God,  and 
have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  science,  have 
been  disguised  in  the  garments  of  some  discovery 
or  hypothesis  of  science. 

However,  the  real  issue  is  not  what  the  modem 


198  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


mind  can  or  cannot  accept,  but,  did  Jesus  work 
miracles?  The  Gospels  say  He  did  work  as  many 
as  thirty-three  miracles.  The  Modernist,  on  the 
other  hand,  gives  us  a  Jesus  who,  like  John  the 
Baptist,  “  did  no  miracles.”  But  a  Jesus  from 
whose  history  the  miracles  are  deleted  is  no  Jesus 
at  all.  The  miraculous  is  so  woven  into  the  fabric 
of  the  garment  of  our  Lord’s  life  that  you  cannot 
tear  it  out  without  destroying  the  garment  itself, 
for  even  if  we  take  out  of  the  Gospels  the  records 
of  the  works  of  Jesus,  we  are  still  confronted  by  a 
Jesus  who,  in  His  teaching,  referred  to  His  power 
to  work  miracles  and  in  the  most  uncompromising 
manner  claimed  that  He  worked  miracles.  A 
Modernist  preacher  tells  me  he  cannot  “  swallow  ” 
that  story  of  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea.  Very  well. 
But  what  is  he  going  to  do  with  the  Jesus,  who, 
when  asked  by  the  messengers  of  John  in  prison, 
“  Art  thou  he  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for 
another?”  answered,  “Go  and  tell  John  that  the 
lame  walk,  the  deaf  hear,  the  blind  see,  the  lepers 
are  cleansed,  the  dead  are  raised  up  and  the  poor 
have  the  gospel  preached  unto  them  ”  ?  Even  with 
the  recorded  miracles  deleted,  the  Gospels  still 
present  to  us  a  Jesus  who  claimed  that  He  worked 
miracles. 

It  is  not  that  we  hanker  after  a  prodigy,  but  that 
we  long  for  Christ.  It  is  not  a  miracle  that  we 
want,  but  Christ,  and  the  only  Christ  we  can  have 
is  the  Christ  who  worked  miracles.  This  Jesus  of 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


199 


the  Modernist  who  did  no  miracles  may  be  a 
very  wonderful  person,  a  great  teacher,  example, 
dreamer,  reformer,  and  so  on.  The  only  trouble 
with  him  is  that  he  never  existed.  The  only  Jesus 
who  existed  was  a  Jesus  who  worked  miracles.  I 
prefer  the  Jesus  who  worked  miracles  and  who 
existed,  to  the  Jesus  who  did  no  miracles  and  who 
never  existed. 

But  let  us  turn  now  to  a  great  fact  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  which  the  Modernist  tells  us  he  has  no  desire 
to  delete  from  the  Gospels,  the  death  of  Jesus  on 
the  Cross.  In  the  New  Testament,  and  even  in  the 
anticipatory  statements  of  Jesus  Himself,  such  as, 
“  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,  which 
is  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins,”  the 
place  and  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is  so 
plain  that  the  wayfaring  man  though  a  fool  need 
not  err  therein.  Paul  tells  us  that  he  delivered  unto 
his  converts  “  first  of  all,”  as  the  primal  truth,  to 
which  all  else  was  subsidiary  and  ancillary,  that 
Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  that  is,  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  Both 
John  and  Paul  give  us  clear  definitions  of  God  as 
love,  and  they  both  agree  in  saying  that  the  grand 
exhibition  of  the  love  of  God  for  mankind  was  the 
death  of  Christ.  It  was  a  substitutionary  and  sac¬ 
rificial  death,  Jesus  taking  the  sinner’s  sins  and  the 
sinner’s  curse,  and  by  His  suffering  and  His  per¬ 
fect  obedience  making  possible  the  forgiveness  of 
the  sinner.  No  better  short  statement  of  the  mean- 


200  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


in g  of  the  death  of  Christ  can  be  found  than  that 
of  Burns  in  The  Cotter's  Saturday  Night ,  where 
he  describes  the  patriarchal  father  reading  at  fam¬ 
ily  worship  from  the  Christian  volume 

“  How  guiltless  blood  for  guilty  man  was  shed.” 

But  that  is  not  what  the  Modernist  means  by 
the  death  of  Christ.  He  says  he  believer  in  vi¬ 
carious  suffering,  that  on  the  Cross,  Christ  suffered 
for  others,  in  harmony  with  the  law  which  runs 
through  the  whole  creation,  the  strong  suffering  for 
the  weak  and  the  weak  for  the  strong,  and  the 
good  for  the  bad,  and  the  mother  for  the  child,  and 
the  past  for  the  present.  But  that  Christ  in  His 
suffering  bore  the  sinner’s  penalty  and  made  satis¬ 
faction  for  the  broken  law,  or  that  Christ’s  death 
had  any  effect  upon  God — that,  the  Modernist  can¬ 
not  accept.  He  gets  very  angry  about  it,  and  of  all 
the  ideas  of  historic  Christianity  it  is  this  basilar 
idea  of  the  atonement,  Christ’s  death  for  sin  and 
For  sinners,  which  stirs  his  modern  mind  to  right¬ 
eous  indignation.  He  says  such  a  thing  is  both 
impossible  and  immoral;  impossible  and  inade¬ 
quate,  because  every  man  must  bear  his  own  trans¬ 
gression,  and  nothing  done  by  another  man  can 
help  him;  immoral,  because  it  is  the  innocent  man 
who  suffers  and  is  punished  instead  of  the  guilty. 
As  a  prominent  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  said  to  an  anxious  parishioner  who  wanted 
to  know  why  he  never  preached  on  the  Atonement, 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


201 


“  I  certainly  would  not  ask  my  son  to  die  for  the 
sins  of  some  one  else,  and  I  do  not  believe  God 
would  have  done  that.” 

When  asked  to  tell  just  what  he  does  mean  by 
the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross,  the  Modernist,  if 
you  can  persuade  him  to  emerge  for  a  little  from 
the  “  low  visibility  ”  where  he  hides  himself  in  his 
rhetoric,  will  confess  that  all  the  death  of  Christ 
means  to  him  is  that  it  was  the  great  example  of 
perfect  obedience  and  perfect  love  for  others,  and 
as  such,  must  have  a  profound  effect  upon  the 
moral  nature  of  every  man  who  contemplates  it. 
Thus  what  Paul  called  the  “  offence  of  the  Cross  ” 
has  ceased.  The  idea  in  the  Cross  which  offends 
the  mind  of  man,  whether  it  be  the  modern,  the 
mediaeval,  or  the  ancient  mind,  is  the  idea  of  con¬ 
demnation,  of  sin,  of  guilt,  of  substitution  and 
mediation.  The  Cross  of  the  New  Testament  is  a 
Cross  in  which  a  man  either  glories  as  Paul  did,  or 
a  Cross  which  he  hates  and  despises  and  at  whose 
Victim  his  unregenerate  nature  cries  out  as  did  the 
railers  at  the  Crucifixion,  “  Come  down  from  the 
Cross !  ”  This  sweet,  altruistic,  vicarious  Cross  of 
the  Modernist  Christian,  what  has  that  to  do  with 
the  Cross  of  Calvary,  the  Cross  of  expiation  and 
atonement?  And  this  new  Jesus  whose  death  is 
the  perfect  example,  exerting  such  a  profound  in¬ 
fluence  upon  men’s  moral  nature,  who  is  he? 
Whoever  he  is,  he  certainly  is  not  the  Jesus  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  Jesus  who  was  delivered  for 


202  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


our  sins  and  rose  again  for  our  justification,  and 
by  whose  blood,  being  cleansed  and  justified,  we 
have  peace  with  God  the  Father. 

It  is  a  sad  task,  this  study  of  the  preaching  of 
“  another  Jesus  ”  in  Protestant  circles  today.  But 
the  encouraging,  the  reassuring,  thing  is  that  in 
every  Protestant  Church  there  is  the  sound  of  com¬ 
motion.  Believing  men  are  at  length  awakening 
to  the  fact  that  the  new  Jesus  who  is  being 
preached  is  not  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  awakening  to  the  fact  that  this  “  other 
Jesus  ”  has  nothing  in  common  with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  and  what 
is  more  to  the  point,  they  are  awakening  to  a  real¬ 
isation  that  this  other  Jesus  of  the  Modernists  is 
not  a  Jesus  who  can  save  and  deliver.  A  damaged 
Christ  can  do  nothing  for  a  damaged  soul  or  a 
damaged  world.  In  all  the  Protestant  Churches 
there  is  a  body  of  men  who  love  their  ecclesiastical 
house  and  home,  and  would  go  out  from  it  with 
sorrow  and  pain  of  heart.  They  will  do  all  that 
they  can  to  contend  against  the  invasion  of  Mod¬ 
ernism  with  its  pseudo- Jesus  who  can  neither  save 
nor  condemn.  But  should  it  become  apparent  that 
the  Churches,  as  at  present  established,  are  going 
to  depart  from  the  faith  of  the  New  Testament 
and  preach  “  another  Jesus  ”  and  this  other  gos¬ 
pel,  “  which  is  not  another,”  then  they  who  still 
believe  in  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament  will  not 


WILL  ANOTHER  JESUS  DO? 


203 


hesitate  for  a  moment.  They  will  rend  the  unity 
of  their  respective  Churches  and  go  out  from 
among  them  and  join  in  a  Christian  fellowship 
where  Jesus  is  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords. 
From  the  river  unto*  the  ends  o*f  the  earth  this 
company  of  believers  are  martialing  their  forces 
and  stretching  out  eager  hands  of  faith  and  com¬ 
munion  to  their  brethren  in  all  the  Churches. 
These  men  know  in  whom  they  have  believed. 
They  know  what  their  faith  is,  and  stand  ready 
to  state  it  and  to  defend  it,  if  need  be,  to  suffer 
and  die  for  it.  To  all  those  who*  openly  attack 
Christianity  to  destroy  it,  and  to  all  those  who, 
under  various  disguises,  seek  to  substitute  “an¬ 
other  Jesus  ”  for  the  Christ  of  the  centuries,  their 
answer  is  the  magnificent  defiance  of  F.  W.  H. 
Meyer’s  St.  Paul , 

“  Whoso  hath  felt  the  spirit  of  the  Highest 

Cannot  confound  Him,  or  doubt  Him  or  deny. 

Yea,  though  with  one  voice,  O  world,  thou  deniest, 
Stand  thou  on  that  side,  for  on  this  am  I.” 


XII 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN  AGAINST 

CHRIST? 

“Is  there  a  new  thing  whereof  it  may  be  said ,  See, 
this  is  new?  It  hath  been  long  ago  in  the  ages  which 
were  before  us.” — Ecclesiastes  i  :  io. 

THERE  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun,  es¬ 
pecially,  in  the  way  of  unbelief.  Of  late 
there  has  been  no  little  stir  in  all  our 
churches  because  of  the  expression  of  certain 
opinions  about  the  Bible  and  the  Christian  faith. 
The  newspapers  are  supposed  to  give  their -readers 
what  is  new,  and  the  prominent  place  which  the 
reports  of  these  opinions  about  Christ  and  the 
Bible  occupy  in  the  newspapers  may  have  a  tend¬ 
ency  to  create  the  impression  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  that  there  really  is  something  new  about 
these  views,  and  that  the  Christian  Church  is  con¬ 
fronted  by  a  new  kind  of  enemy,  armed  with  a  new 
and  most  dangerous  weapon.  But  if  the  ground 
of  the  alarm  felt  by  earnest  Christians  in  our 
churches  is  that  either  new  facts  or  new  opinions 
are  now  being  used  to  break  down  faith,  they  may 
relieve  their  minds  of  all  anxiety.  The  words  of 
the  wise  man  apply  with  particular  appositeness  to 
what  is  popularly  spoken  of  as  “  new  ”  theology 

204 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


205 


and  “  modernism  ” :  “  In  all  of  it,  is  there  a  new 
thing  whereof  it  may  be  said,  See,  this  is  new? 
It  hath  been  long  ago  in  the  ages  which  were 
before  us.” 

The  metempsychosis  of  error  and  heresy  is  a 
very  curious  thing.  When  the  error  or  false  teach¬ 
ing  has  been  dead  for  generations,  so  long  that  the 
volumes  which  entombed  it  are  worm-eaten  and 
the  fierce  controversies  which  raged  about  it  are 
deep  in  oblivion,  lo,  the  thing  comes  to  life  again! 
The  ugly  chrysalis  of  unbelief  is  transformed  into 
a  brilliant  butterfly,  after  which  the  would-be 
doubters  of  the  day  go  in  hot  and  eager  pursuit. 
By-and-by  they  grow  weary  in  their  pursuit,  and 
the  butterfly  itself  loses  its  vitality  as  the  brilliant 
colours  fade  from  its  wings  and  it  sinks  back  into 
the  earth  whence  it  came.  The  new  theologies  and 
the  new  conceptions  of  Christianity  are  new  only 
to  the  age  which  is  beguiled  into  listening  to  them 
and  following  after  them.  The  history  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  shows  that  in  successive  generations  they 
have  been  looked  upon  as  new,  whereas  they  are 
as  old  as  human  unbelief,  and  that  is  as  ancient 
as  man. 

Almost  the  first  sentence  of  the  Bible  is,  “  God 
said,”  and  almost  the  first  sentence  of  temptation 
in  the  Bible  is,  “Hath  God  said?”  The  great 
question  of  religion  is,  whether  or  not  God  has 
spoken  to  man,  and  whether  or  not  we  have  a  true 
record  of  that  revelation.  Has  He,  Whom  dimly 


206  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


we  take  to  be  our  Creator  and  our  God,  come  out 
from  the  darkness  and  the  silence,  and  spoken  a 
word  to  man?  The  destiny  of  a  race  hangs  upon 
the  answer  to  that  question.  Christianity  presents 
itself  to  humanity  as  God’s  word,  His  speech,  His 
revelation,  for  the  good  of  man.  “  And  God  said,” 
is  the  chord  struck  so  magnificently  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  book.  It  follows  us  with  its  deep 
reverberations  wherever  we  go  in  this  many- 
chamber  ed  palace  of  the  Bible  and  of  Christian 
faith.  “  And  God  said,”  “  Hear  ye  the  Word  of 
the  Lord !  ”  “  Thus  saith  the  Lord !  ” 

Yet,  at  the  very  beginning  came  the  Tempter 
with  his  sly  insinuation,  “  Yea,  and  hath  God 
said  ?  ”  This  first  sentence  of  unbelief  will  be  the 
last  also,  for  to  create  doubt  as  to  whether  or  not 
God  has  spoken,  is  the  only  way  in  which  the 
powers  of  darkness  can  persuade  the  soul  to  rebel 
against  God  and  refuse  the  great  salvation  which 
He  has  provided.  All  forms  of  unbelief,  ancient, 
mediaeval  and  modem,  are  in  substance  but  a  repe¬ 
tition  of  that  first  question  put  to  the  woman  by 
the  Tempter.  God  has  never  said  anything  to  a 
fallen  race  which  was  not  immediately  questioned, 
denied,  ridiculed.  For  every,  “  Thus  saith  the 
Lord !  ”  there  has  been  an  answering,  “  Hath  God 
said?”  The  attack  on  the  Bible,  on  God’s  Word, 
on  revealed  religion,  is  as  old  as  man’s  mind. 
Should  anyone  say  to  us,  then,  concerning  some 
reported  attack  upon  Christianity,  “  See,  this  is 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


207 


new !  ”  remember  it  hath  been  long  ago  in  the  ages 
which  were  before  us.  The  same  enemies  have 
launched  their  fiery  darts  against  the  Church  and 
the  Bible.  The  mind  that  invented  them  was  just 
as  keen,  and  the  ami  which  hurled  them  was  just 
as  strong,  as  are  the  mind  and  the  arm  which 
devise  them  and  hurl  them  today.  Yet  the  Church 
and  the  Bible  perdure. 

THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

This  general  proposition  I  wish  to  develop  and 
illustrate  by  a  comparative  study  of  what  men  in 
different  ages  have  said  against  Christ  and  His 
Church.  We  might  start  with  a  doctrine  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  which  is  much  under  discussion  today,  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord.  One  of  the  most  popu¬ 
lar  preachers  in  England  today,  in  a  series  of  ser¬ 
mons  on  the  Apostles’  Creed,  says  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  “  The  historical  evidence  is  not  conclusive 
either  way.  It  leads,  and  must  lead,  to  a  verdict 
of  not  proven.  ...  I  think  it  (the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth)  found  its  place  in  the  Creed,  and  has 
kept  it,  because  the  purity  of  Jesus  seemed  to  His 
followers  to  demand  such  a  miracle — a  unique  per¬ 
sonality  demanded  a  unique  birth.”  According  to 
this  statement,  it  was  the  effort  to  account  for 
the  “  unique  personality  of  Jesus  ”  that  led  to  the 
invention  of  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  its 
inclusion  in  the  Creed. 

Side  by  side  with  these  utterances  from  Christian 


208  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


pulpits  let  me  place  a  paragraph  from  Thomas 
Paine’s  Age  of  Reason :  “  It  is,  however,  not  dif¬ 
ficult  to  account  for  the  credit  that  was  given  to  the 
story  of  Jesus  Christ  being  the  Son  of  God.  He 
was  bom  when  the  heathen  mythology  had  still 
some  fashion  in  the  world,  and  that  mythology  had 
prepared  the  people  for  the  belief  of  such  a  story. 
Almost  all  the  extraordinary  men  that  lived  under 
the  heathen  mythology  were  reputed  to  be  the  sons 
of  some  of  their  gods.  It  was  not  a  new  thing  at 
that  time  to  believe  a  man  to  have  been  celestially 
begotten.” 

Going  back  to  the  second  century,  we  find  in  the 
True  Discourse  of  Celsus,  the  great  assailant  of 
Christianity  in  his  days,  a  similar  rejection  of  the 
Virgin  Birth.  What  Celsus  said  is  preserved  in 
the  refutation  of  it  found  in  the  works  of  Origen 
I,  chapters  28-37.  The  Jew  whom  Celsus  intro¬ 
duces  to  confute  Jesus,  charges  Him  with  having 
invented  the  story  of  His  birth  from  a  Virgin,  and 
upbraids  Him  with  having  been  bom  of  a  poor 
spinning  woman  who  had  been  turned  out  of  doors 
by  her  husband,  a  carpenter  by  trade,  because  she 
was  guilty  of  adultery  with  a  soldier  named 
Panthera.  Celsus  also  seeks  to  discredit  the  Virgin 
Birth  by  likening  it  to  the  tales  of  Greek  fables 
about  the  Danse,  and  Melanippe,  and  Auge,  and 
Antiope.  His  special  contribution  to  the  literature 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  found  in  his  preservation  of 
the  Jewish  story  of  a  Roman  soldier,  Panthera. 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


209 


He  boldly  and  shamelessly  filled  in  the  gap  created 
by  denying  the  Virgin  Birth,  by  supplying  a  sup¬ 
posed  father.  This  is  logical,  but  more  than  the 
Modernists  of  today  will  dare. 

Going  still  further  back,  to  the  first  century,  we 
come  to  Cerinthus,  a  contemporary  of  St.  John, 
who  held  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be  impossible,  and 
made  Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  who 
received  divine  powers  at  the  baptism.  When, 
therefore,  one  refers  to  the  Virgin  Birth  as  a 
“  biological  miracle  which  the  modern  mind  can¬ 
not  receive,”  he  is  telling  us  nothing  new,  either 
about  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel  narratives  or  the 
mind  of  man,  for  the  eighteenth  century  mind  of 
Thomas  Paine  found  it  just  as  difficult  to  receive; 
and  Celsus  and  Cerinthus,  one  in  the  second  and 
the  other  in  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
were  just  as  much  opposed  to  the  idea  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  as  our  Modernists  of  today.  The  Modernists 
are  simply  saying  what  the  unbelievers  of  every  age 
have  said.  The  only  difference  is  that  Celsus  and 
Paine  said  from  without  the  Church,  whereas  the 
Modernist  says  it  from  within  the  Church. 

the:  atonement 

The  Christian  Church  has  never  ignored  the 
Cross  of  Christ.  How  He  died  for  our  sins,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Scriptures,  was  the  truth  that  Paul 
and  the  other  apostles  delivered,  first  of  all ,  to  the 
people  to  whom  they  preached.  The  great  pre- 


210  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


supposition  of  Christianity  is,  that  man  is  a  sinner, 
and  that  Christianity  is  God’s  great  remedy  for 
sin;  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
to  Himself,  not  man  reconciling  himself  to  God, 
but  God,  and  that  God  did  this  through  the  eter¬ 
nal  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  Cross,  “  for  it  was 
the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father,  through  Him, 
to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself,  having  made 
peace  through  the  blood  of  His  Cross,  through 
Him,  I  say,  whether  things  upon  the  earth  or 
things  in  the  heavens.”  The  grand  stream  of 
Christian  life  and  history  has  never  deviated  from 
its  true  course  which  takes  it  ever  close  to  the 
Cross,  as  some  western  river  flows  close  to  the 
great  rock  which  rises  from  its  banks.  As  a 
Church,  the  Christian  Church  has  proclaimed 
Christ  and  Him  crucified ;  there  it  has  grounded  all 
its  truth  and  rested  all  its  radiant  hopes. 

Yet,  from  age  to  age,  we  have  had  within  and 
without  the  Church  teachings  and  utterances  which 
would  take  the  meaning  and  the  power  out  of  the 
Cross,  so  that  its  “  offence  ”  has  ceased,  that  is,  the 
idea  that  on  the  Cross  Christ  took  the  sinner’s  place. 
Of  late  there  have  been  frequent  and  bitter  out¬ 
breaks  against  the  Cross  as  Paul  preached  it 
and  gloried  in  it.  I  shall  quote  some  of  these 
utterances. 

Caricature  perhaps  brings  out  the  true  features 
as  well  as  an  ordinary  portrait.  In  a  recent  ser¬ 
mon.  a  well-known  preacher  describes  what  he  calls 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


211 


a  special  theory  of  the  Atonement  as  held  by 
“  Fundamentalists,”  “  that  the  blood  of  our  Lord, 
shed  in  substitutionary  death,  placates  an  alienated 
Deity  and  makes  possible  welcome  for  the  return¬ 
ing  sinner.”  In  a  published  letter  he  says  of  the 
Atonement,  “  There  never  has  been  any  redemption 
from  sin  and  degradation  except  through  vicarious 
sacrifice.  .  .  .  What  I  do  believe  is  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Divine  Love  taking  on  Himself  the 
sins  of  the  world  that  He  might  save  us.  I  not 
only  believe  this,  but  I  see  no  difficulty  in  believing 
it.  What  I  do  not  believe  is  a  theory  of  the  Atone¬ 
ment  which  is  founded,  not  upon  this  universal 
fact  of  vicarious  atonement,  but  upon  a  govern¬ 
mental  theory  of  substitutionary  punishment  which 
was  outlawed  from  every  decent  penal  system  on 
earth  long  ago.” 

A  much  more  shocking  utterance  will  be  found 
in  a  recent  book  by  a  professor  in  a  Baptist  theo¬ 
logical  seminary: 

“  Paul’s  idea  of  law,  of  penalty,  of  expiation, 
offends  the  modem  sense  of  justice  and  contradicts 
our  ethical  values  at  every  point  of  contact.  With¬ 
out  caricature  it  may  be  compared  to  ideas  that 
prevail  in  certain  police  circles  today.  A  sensa¬ 
tional  crime  is  committed;  the  public  is  greatly 
roused  and  demands  detection  and  punishment  of 
the  criminal.  This  the  police  are  unable  to  ac¬ 
complish,  but  obviously  something  must  be  done 
to  silence  public  clamour;  so  they  ‘  frame  up’  a 


212  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


case  against  some  one  who  can  plausibly  be  made 
the  scapegoat.  He  is  convicted  by  perjury,  the 
public  cry  is  silenced,  the  majesty  of  the  law  has 
been  vindicated,  justice  is  satisfied!  But  we  are  no 
longer  content  with  that  brand  of  justice.  We 
insist  that  the  guilt  of  the  guilty  cannot  be  expiated, 
justice  cannot  be  satisfied,  by  the  punishment  of  the 
innocent.  Yet  our  own  theology  teaches  and  con¬ 
tinues  to  teach  us  that  the  Almighty  could  find  no 
better  expedient  to  save  men  than  to  ‘  frame  up  ’  a 
case  against  His  own  Son,  and  put  to  death  the 
innocent  for  the  guilty.  And  that  which  fills  us 
with  horror  when  done  by  man  to  man,  we  praise 
and  glorify  when  done  by  God  to  God.” 

In  a  recent  book,  I  Believe ,  a  popular  English 
preacher  imagines  a  man  who  has  been  asked  to 
come  and  be  saved  on  the  ground  of  Christ’s  bitter 
suffering,  answering :  “  What  I  want  to  know  is. 
Why  did  Jesus  suffer?  What  good  did  His  suf¬ 
ferings  do?  What  good  purpose  was  served  by 
them  which  could  not  have  been  served  without? 
If  you  cannot  give  me  intelligible  answers  of  some 
sort,  I  am  prepared  to  pity  Jesus,  as  I  am  prepared 
to  pity  any  other  noble  visionary  who  has  been  put 
to  death,  because  he  was  before  his  time,  but  I  do 
not  see  why  I  should  worship  Him  because  of  His 
sufferings,  which  are  just  one  more  gruesome  act 
in  this  world’s  sordid  tragedy  of  errors.  I  cannot 
see  what  good  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  did,  or  why, 
if  there  be  an  Almighty  God  of  Love,  I  could  not 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


213 


have  been  saved  without  them.  I  cannot  see  why 
men  should  not  have  been  forgiven,  if  they  re¬ 
pented,  without  this  brutal  murder  as  a  sacrifice. 
Jesus  forgave  men  freely  when  He  was  on  earth, 
and  never  Himself  mentioned  any  other  condition 
of  forgiveness  but  repentance.  Yet  you  say  that 
a  callous  murder  had  to  be  committed  before  it 
was  possible  for  God  to  forgive  a  repentant  man. 
To  be  quite  frank,  this  doctrine  strikes  me  as 
being  not  merely  incredible,  but  immoral  as  well.” 

This  indictment  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross 
from  the  “  man  on  the  street  ” — but  who,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  is  far  more  ready  to  take  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Cross,  than  some  scholars  and  preach¬ 
ers  who  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  “  man  on  the 
street  ”  their  own  doubts — the  author  answers  by 
saying  that  “  plain  men  do  not  understand  the 
justice  that  demands  eternal  punishment,  and  can¬ 
not  picture  a  Father  who  requires  propitiation 
before  He  forgives  a  repentant  child.”  “  The 
fact  is  our  preachers  spend  their  time  explaining, 
not  the  Gospel,  but  the  symbols  and  metaphors 
which  its  first  evangelists  used  in  the  struggle  to 
give  its  message  to  the  men  of  their  day,  men 
whose  minds  moved  in  a  different  world  from  ours, 
whose  religion  was  steeped  in  bloody  sacrifices, 
whose  states  were  ruled  by  despots,  and  whose 
idea  of  justice  was  full  of  cruelty  and  destitute  of 
love.  We  sacrifice  reason  and  imperil  morality  in 
order  to  keep  these  pseudo-sacred  symbols  and 


214  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


metaphors  intact.”  He  then  goes  on  to  improve  on 
the  explanations  of  John  and  Peter  and  Paul,  with 
their  minds  “  steeped  in  bloody  sacrifices,”  but  who 
admittedly  had  some  close  contact  with  the  Son  of 
God,  by  telling  us  that  it  is  Christ  that  saves  and 
not  the  Cross ;  that  the  Cross  was  the  most  natural 
and  inevitable  thing  in  the  world,  “  as  natural  and 
inevitable  as  all  the  rest  of  the  hideous  process  by 
which  life  has  been,  and  is  being,  evolved.  .  .  . 
We  are  saved  not  by  what  Christ  was  or  did,  but 
by  what  He  is.  The  Cross  is  common ;  it  is  Christ 
who  is  unique.”  Having  rejected  the  plain  Scrip¬ 
tural  explanation  of  the  Cross,  men  are  hard  put 
to  give  any  explanation,  save  to  say,  generally,  that 
it  tells  us  of  the  love  of  God.  But  the  great  act  of 
God’s  love  is  left  without  any  explanation. 

In  a  recent  book,  Modernism  in  Religion /  the 
author  refers  thus  to  the  old  view  of  the  Cross  as 
a  ‘sacrifice :  “  The  modernistic  conception  of  salva¬ 
tion  and  how  it  is  effected  has  little  in  common 
with  theological  theories.  ...  So  far  as  we  have 
the  spirit  of  Jesus,  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  just 
so  far  are  we  saved.  .  .  .  God  needs  no  reconcil¬ 
ing  offering  from  man.  Why  not  let  the  old 
theories  go?  Why  not  take  Jesus’  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  as  tM3  simple  and  sufficient  ‘  plan  of 
salvation  ’  ?  The  blush  of  shame  on  the  face  of  the 
self-banished  returning  son,  and  the  Father’s  yearn¬ 
ing  heart  going  forth  to  welcome  him !  That  is  all.” 


1  Modernism  in  Religion ,  J.  M.  S^RRETT. 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


215 


So  much  for  modem  present-day  statements 
about  the  death  of  Christ.  Now  let  us  trace  that 
stream  of  denial  back  through  the  ages.  First  we 
go  back  half  a  century,  and  in  the  lectures  of  the 
brilliant  agnostic,  Robert  Ingersoll,  we  find  this 
saying  about  the  Atonement : 

“  The  Christian  system  is,  that  if  you  will  be¬ 
lieve  something,  you  can  get  credit  for  something 
that  somebody  else  did;  and  as  you  are  charged 
with  the  sin  of  Adam,  you  are  credited  with  the 
virtues  of  the  Lord.” 

Of  the  same  tone  is  Paine’s  comment  on  the 
Atonement  in  The  Age  of  Reason:  “  The  Christian 
mythologists  tell  us  that  Christ  died  for  the  sins  of 
the  world,  and  that  He  came  on  purpose  to  die. 
That  Christ’s  death  does  not  prevent  our  dying  is 
evident,  because  we  all  die ;  and  with  respect  to  the 
second  explanation,  including  with  it  the  natural 
death  or  damnation  of  all  mankind,  it  is  imperti¬ 
nently  representing  the  Creator  as  coming  off,  or 
revoking  sentence,  by  a  pun  or  quibble  upon  the 
word  death.  That  manufacturer  of  quibbles,  St. 
Paul,  has  helped  this  quibble  on,  by  making  another 
quibble  upon  the  word  Adam.  He  makes  there  to 
be  two  Adams ;  the  one  who  sins  in  fact,  and  suffers 
by  proxy;  the  other  who  sins  by  proxy,  and  suffers 
in  fact.” 

Leaving  Ingersoll  and  Paine,  we  take  a  long 
journey  back  to  the  father  of  them  all,  Celsus. 
Celsus’  chief  objection  to  Christianity  seems  to  be 


216  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


that  it  offered  forgiveness  to  sinners,  to  the  vilest 
of  the  earth,  in  contrast  with  the  mysteries  which 
invited  only  the  good  and  the  pure  to  come  to  their 
celebrations.  But  in  rejecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
for  sin,  Celsus  is  more  logical  than  the  modernists. 
The  modernists  reject  the  sacrificial  death  for  sin 
but  still  praise  that  death  and  dwell  upon  the  inci¬ 
dents  of  our  Lord’s  passion.  But  Celsus  is  more 
logical  when  he  scoffs  at  our  Lord’s  suffering,  say¬ 
ing  that  He  received  no  assistance  from  His 
Lather  and  was  unable  to  aid  Himself,  and  re¬ 
proaches  Him  with  lack  of  fortitude  in  pain  and 
suffering,  saying  that  when  the  vinegar  and  the 
gall  was  offered  Him  to  ease  His  pains  “  he  rushed 
with  open  mouth  to  drink  of  them,  and  could  not 
endure  His  thirst  as  any  ordinary  man  frequently 
endures  it  ” ;  that  He  weakly  prayed  to  let  the  cup 
pass  from  Him  in  Gethsemane,  and  that  there  was 
nothing  in  His  conduct  to  compare  with  the  forti¬ 
tude  of  Epictetus  who,  when  his  master  was  twist¬ 
ing  his  leg,  said,  “You  will  break  my  leg”;  and 
when  he  had  broken  it  said,  “  Did  I  not  tell  you 
that  you  would  break  it  ?  ” 

And  there  Celsus  unwittingly  laid  his  finger 
upon  the  one  distinctive  thing  about  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  the  thing  which  he  could  not  or  would 
not  understand,  namely,  that  Christ  was  suffering 
for  sin,  and  bearing  the  curse  of  sin.  The  Mod¬ 
ernist  wants  to  do  away  with  the  sacrificial  death 
for  sin,  but  still  keep  the  pathetic  figure  of  Geth- 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


217 


semane’s  shadows  and  the  solitary  sufferer  of  Gol¬ 
gotha.  But  Celsus  was  more  logical  than  the 
Modernist,  for  Christ  in  the  midst  of  His  trials 
presents  a  strange  figure  compared  with  Epictetus, 
or  Socrates,  or  many  a  nameless  man  who  has 
gone  to  the  stake  or  the  gibbet,  unless  He  is 
suffering  for  sin,  drinking  the  cup  of  human  woe. 
If  God  is  visiting  upon  Him  the  iniquities  of  us  all, 
making  Him  to  be  sin  who  knew  no  sin,  then  we 
understand  the  prayer  of  Gethsemane,  “  O  my 
Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me !  ”  and  the  cry  of  Calvary,  “  My  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me !  ” 

The  reason  adduced  by  the  so-called  “  Modern¬ 
ists  ”  for  rejecting  the  substitutionary  atonement  is 
that  man  has  so  developed  morally  that  such  an 
idea  is  repugnant  to  him.  Just  as  in  the  case  of 
miracles  it  is  claimed  that  the  progress  and  revela¬ 
tion  of  scientific  research  have  made  it  impossible 
for  the  modern  mind  to  accept  a  miracle  like  the 
Virgin  Birth,  or  Christ  walking  on  the  sea,  so  with 
regard  to  the  Atonement,  they  claim  that  the 
progress  of  human  thought,  the  humanisation  of 
society,  make  it  impossible  to  accept  the  New 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  But  just  as 
in  the  case  of  miracles,  we  saw  that  the  mediaeval 
and  ancient  mind,  wholly  uninstructed  and  unen¬ 
lightened  in  modem  science,  found  a  miracle  just 
as  objectionable  as  the  modem  mind,  so  in  the  case 
of  the  Atonement  the  objections  come  not  only 


218  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


from  men  of  this  modern  day,  the  heir  of  the  ages, 
the  ripe  product  of  the  softening  and  refining  in¬ 
fluences  of  Christianity,  but  also  from  the  mind 
of  the  doubter  of  the  second  century. 

What  makes  the  Atonement  repugnant  to  the 
Modernists  of  today,  to  the  agnostics  of  half  a 
century  ago,  to  the  deists  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
to  the  unbelievers  of  the  second  century,  to  the 
Jews,  to  whom  it  was  a  stumbling  block,  and  to  the 
Greeks,  to  whom  it  was  foolishness,  is  not  any 
extraordinarily  developed  sense  of  justice,  or  true 
zeal  for  the  righteousness  of  God,  how  the  judge 
of  all  the  earth  must  do  that  which  is  right,  but  a 
native  objection  to  and  repugnance  for  the  impli¬ 
cation  of  the  Cross,  namely,  that  we  are  sinners 
who  for  ourselves  can  do  nothing;  “for  I  thus 
judge  that  if  Christ  died  for  all,  then  had  all  died.” 
This  is  the  “  offense  ”  of  the  Cross,  that  it  not  only 
saves  but  condemns  ;  that  it  takes  all  man’s  learn¬ 
ing,  strength,  pride,  fame,  wealth,  natural  expec¬ 
tations,  past  achievements,  and  says,  “  This  is 
nothing!  ” 

That  it  is  what  the  Cross  says  about  sin  that 
constitutes  its  chief  offense  to  the  human  mind,  is 
apparent  by  what  Paine  says  of  the  Christian 
teaching  that  man  is  a  sinner :  “  It  is  by  his  being 
taught  to  contemplate  himself  as  an  outlaw,  as  an 
outcast,  as  a  beggar,  as  a  pauper,  as  one  thrown  as 
it  were  on  a  dunghill  at  an  immense  distance  from 
his  Creator,  and  who  must  make  his  approaches 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


219 


by  creeping1,  and  cringing  to  intermediate  beings, 
that  he  conceives  either  a  contemptuous  disregard 
for  everything  under  the  name  of  religion,  or  be¬ 
comes  indifferent,  or  turns  devout,  what  he  calls 
devout.  In  the  latter  case,  he  consumes  his  life  in 
grief,  or  the  affectation  of  it.”  And  in  the  same 
vein  Celsus,  who  is  always  able  to  go  the  Modern¬ 
ist  and  the  agnostic  one  better.  He  compares  the 
Christians  “  to  a  flight  of  bats,  or  to  a  swarm  of 
ants  issuing  out  of  their  nests,  or  to  frogs  holding 
council  in  a  marsh,  or  to  worms  crawling  together 
in  the  corner  of  a  dunghill  and  quarreling  with  one 
another  as  to  which  of  them  were  the  greatest 
sinners.” 


THE  ANTIQUITY  OE  MODERNISM 

There  is  nothing  peculiar  about  the  expressions 
of  disbelief  in  Christian  doctrine  which  we  hear  on 
every  side  today.  They  are  but  echoes  of  the  spirit 
of  unbelief  that  is  in  the  world  from  the  beginning. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  the  modern  mind  or  the 
mediaeval  mind,  but  the  natural  heart  and  mind  of 
man  which  is  enmity  with  God,  and  alienated  from 
God.  Christianity  presents  itself  to  men  as  a 
remedy  for  sin.  But  man,  ancient,  mediaeval,  or 
modem,  has  never  liked  to  confess  that  he  is  a  sin¬ 
ner.  Hence  he  has  either  openly  rejected  Chris¬ 
tianity,  or  what  is  more  common,  and  today  most 
prevalent,  he  has  tried  to  restate  it  and  reinterpret 
its  great  doctrines  so  that  they  shall  apply  to  this 


220  GREAT  QUESTIONS  ABOUT  CHRIST 


imaginary  being  who  is  not  a  lost  sinner.  But  the 
attempt  breaks  down.  Christianity  is  a  religion 
intended  for  sinners  and  cannot  be  made  to  fit  any 
other  kind  of  man.  The  present  chaotic  condition 
of  Christianity,  so  far  as  its  beliefs  are  concerned, 
is  due  entirely  to  the  fact  that  the  great  presuppo¬ 
sition  of  Christianity,  that  man  is  a  lost  sinner 
who  can  do  nothing  for  himself,  and  must  perish 
unless  Christ  comes  to  save  him,  is  either  bitterly 
denied  or  coolly  ignored.  We  may  talk  as  we  will 
about  the  44  new  knowledge,”  the  44  progress  of 
science,”  44  progressive  revelation,”  the  44  new 
world  ”  we  live  in,  the  44  static  ”  rather  than  the 
44  dynamic  ”  idea  of  faith,  and  so  on  through  all 
the  catalogue  of  the  favourite  terms  of  Modernist 
theology ;  but  that  is  not  the  cause  or  the  origin  of 
the  neo-Christianity,  the  gospel  44  which  is  not  an¬ 
other,”  which  is  being  preached  in  so  many  of  our 
churches  today.  The  real  cause  and  source  of  it  is 
man’s  unwillingness  to  take  God’s  remedy  for  sin. 
Whether  that  unwillingness  and  that  rejection  of 
God’s  redemptive  love  be  phrased  in  the  terms  of 
Celsus,  or  Volney,  or  Paine,  or  Ingersoil,  or  in  the 
honied  accents  of  Modernist  teachers  and  preach¬ 
ers,  it  is  at  the  bottom  one  and  the  same  thing. 
No  man  can  become  a  Christian  without  the  act  of 
faith,  and  that  act  of  faith,  that  taking  Christ  as 
Lord  and  Saviour,  presupposes  taking  one’s  self  as 
a  sinner.  That  men  should  refuse  to  do  this  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun.  Men  today,  as  well  as 


HAVE  NEW  FOES  RISEN? 


221 


the  men  of  yesterday,  have  that  solemn,  that  awful 
liberty,  the  liberty  to  reject  the  Son  of  God.  We 
plead  with  them  not  to  do  so.  We  call  upon  them 
to  repent  and  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
be  saved.  But  if  they  will  not  believe,  let  them  say 
so  like  men,  and  face  the  wrath  of  Him  whose 
dying  love  they  contemn.  What  we  cannot  tolerate 
in  them  is  that  they  should  array  their  unbelief  in 
modem  garments  and  try  to  persuade  men  that  it 
is  in  any  respect  different  from  the  unbelief  which 
greeted  the  Son  of  God  when  He  first  came  to  save 
sinners,  and  which  will  continue  to  fight  against 
Him  until  He  hath  put  all  enemies  under  His  feet. 
When  “  Herod  was  dead,  an  angel  of  the  Lord 
appeared  in  a  dream  to  Joseph  in  Egypt,  saying, 
Arise,  and  take  the  young  child  and  his  mother, 
and  go  into  the  land  of  Israel,  for  they  are  dead 
that  sought  the  young  child’s  life.”  Each  new  age 
has  its  successors  to  Herod  who  seek  “  the  young 
child’s  life.”  Their  purpose  is  the  same  from  age 
to  age,  although  new  uniforms  appear  and  new 
phrases  are  coined  and  new  weapons  are  employed. 
But  ever  the  contest  comes  to  an  end  with  the  ver¬ 
dict  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  "  They  are  dead  that 
sought  the  young  child’s  life.”  The  generations  of 
unbelief  come  and  go,  but  the  Eternal  Child  abides 
forever. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


BIBLE  INTERPRETATION 


REV.  CLARENCE  EDWARD  MACARTNEY 

The  Parables  of  the  Old  Testament 

$1.50. 

A  New  Edition  of  a  volume  of  rare  interest,  breaking 
comparatively  new  untraversed  ground.  The  great  al¬ 
legories  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  are  searchingly 
analyzed  and  given  a  new  significance  and  spiritual 
interpretation, 

WILLIAM  ROBERT  POLHAMUS ,  S.T.D. 

Pastor  First  Methodist  Church,  Massillon,  Ohio , 

Mountain  Scenes  from  the  Bible 

$2.00. 

In  an  unusually  interesting  way  Mr.  Polhamus  has 
striven  to  combine  the  actual  incident  with  the  spiritual 
lessons  taught  thereby.  The  reader  is  helped  and  profited 
by  the  author’s  treatment  of  his  themes,  for  at  all 
times  he  has  held  the  geography  of  these  sacred  heights 
as  being  of  less  significance  than  the  spiritual  import  of 
what  transpired  there.  An  enlightening  and  deeply  iaf» 
Geresting  piece  of  work, 

G.  CAMPBELL  MORGAN ,  D.D. 

The  Bible  in  Fiye  Years 

A  Comprehensive  Outline  for  the  Entire 
Sacred  Volume.  Paper,  lit  35c. 

A  study-outline  for  a  five-year  course  whereby  the 
student  may  acquire  a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  the 
Bible  as  a  whole.  Thirty-nine  lessons  are  arranged  for 
each  year,  thus  leaving  a  reasonable  interim  for  vaca¬ 
tions,  and  observance  of  special  Church  Festivals,  such 
as  Easter,  Christmas,  etc. 

EDWARD  M.  BOUNDS ,  D.D, 

Author  of  "  Heaven,"  "Purpose  in  Prayer ,”  etc. 

Satan,  His  Personality,  His  Power, 
His  Overthrow 

$1.25. 

"Written  in  a  most  readable  phraseology  as  is  that  of  a 
Bunyan’s  ‘Pilgrim’s  Progress’  or  a  sermon  of  Moody’s — 
simple,  clear  and  strong.  Bible  quotations  are  woven  into 
its  composition  like  threads  of  gold  into  the  warp  and  woof 
of  the  cloth.  It  is  didactic  and  devotional.  A  veritable 
little  classic  on  a  subject  not  often  discussed  in  theso 
times.” — Baptist. 


STRIKING  ADDRESSES 


JOHN  HENRY  JOWETT,D.D . 

God  Our  Contemporary 

A  Series  of  Complete  Addresses  $1.50, 

.  Among  the  pulpit-giants  of  to-day  Dr.  Jowett  has  beest 
given  a  high  place.  Every  preacher  will  want  at  once 
this  latest  product  of  his  fertile  mind.  It  consists  of  a 
series  of  full  length  sermons  which  are  intended  to  show 
that  only  in  God  as  revealed  to  us  in  Jesus  Christ  caa 
«ye  find  the  resources  to  meet  the  needs  of  human  life, 

SIDNEY  BERRY,  M.A. 

Revealing  Light  $1.50. 

A  volume  of  addresses  by  the  successor  to  Dr.  Jowett 
at  Carr’s  Dane  Church,  Birmingham,  the  underlying  aim 
of  which  is  to  show  what  the  Christian  revelation  mean3 
in  relation  to  the  great  historic  facts  of  the  Faith  and 
the  response  which  those  facts  must  awaken  in  the  hearts 
of  men  to-day.  Every  address  is  an  example  of  the 
best  preaching  of  this  famous  “preacher  to  young  men.” 

FREDERICK  C.  SPURR 

Last  Minister  of  Regents  Park  Chapel,  London, 

The  Master  Key 

A  Study  in  World-Problems  $i.35» 

A  fearless,  clearly-reasoned  restatement  of  the  terms  of 
the  Christian  Gospel  and  its  relation  to  the  travail  through 
which  the  world  is  passing.  Mr.  Spurr  is  a  man  in  the 
vanguard  of  religious  thought,  yet  just  as  emphatically,  as 
any  thinker  of  the  old  school,  he  insists  on  one  Physician 
able  to  heal  the  wounds  and  woes  of  humanity. 

RUSSELL  H.  CONWELL,  D.D. 

Pastor  Baptist  Temple,  Philadelphia, 

Unused  Powers  $1.25. 

To  "Acres  of  Diamonds,”  “The  Angel’s  Lily,”  “Why 

Lincoln  Laughed,”  “How  to  Live  the  Christ  Life,”  and 
many  other  stirring  volumes,  Dr.  Conwell  has  just  added 
another  made  up  of  some  of  his  choicest  addresses.  Dr, 
Conwell  speaks,  as  he  has  always  spoken,  out  of  the  ex- 
perimental  knowledge  and  practical  wisdom  of  a  man,  who 
having  long  faced  the  stark  realities  of  life,  has  been 
exalted  thereby. 

GAIUS  GLENN  ATKINS,  D.D, 

Minister  of  the  First  Congregational  Church, 

Detroit,  Michigan. 

The  Undiscovered  Country  $1.50. 

A  group  of  addresses  marked  by  distinction  of  style 
and  originality  of  approach.  The  title  discourse  furnishes 
a  central  theme  to  which  those  following  stand  in  rela¬ 
tion.  Dr.  Atkins’  work,  throughout,  is  marked  by  clarity 
of  presentation,  polished  dietion  and  forceful  phrasing. 


Date  Due 


ir  30 

JE 15  ’53 

fsrrp  n 

4 

ia  i  i 

RhSt'liV  h 

/f*"-  ’  I 

■  —  i  ^ 

0  2  2  ’4 

pCT  3U 

“Pi  " 

n  1 3 

i 

• 

jvj  13  •& 

4feft^3*4i  •  ■♦»--•;•  a  , 

.'*  '5C 

85  >48 

1  I  ,9 

P  *L.£  ^V: 

r^i.  ; 

W 

F  16  ' 

J'aCIJLI 

V 

k  “■  ■-  l  i 

FI  t  g  t 

*  A 


1 


